Tag Archives: father

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.


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.”


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.


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.


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:


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:


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:


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:


[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.



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.


Dreams From My Real Fertile Imagination (Or, Wholly Moley???)

The Mole Poked His Head Up Long Enough To Ask, “Is This Ohio???”

Well, it seems that Director Joel Gilbert, who produced the sordid DVD, Dreams from My Real Father, is now mailing free copies of the DVD into Ohio and other places. But, the really fun story here seems to be down in the comments section at ORYR, as you will see later. However, first:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)


The story is at ObamaReleaseYourRecords, and the headline there is

Joel Gilbert Punks Media: Mails 1,000,000 DVDs To Ohio Voters; Million More Being Sent

Moles And Birthers Mix It Up In An Orgy Of Self Destruction

While the overall Birther reception is enthusiastic, there is one  Birther down in the comment section who is suspicious that this is a Double Reverse Whammy, and Gilbert’s whole point is to sabotage the stupid two citizen parent theory. Because, if Frank Marshall Davis is really Obama’s father, and not the guy from Kenya, then horror of horrors, Obama is a natural born citizen after all!

Isn’t this ironic? Gilbert invents this delusional conspiracy theory tale, and darned if his paranoid and delusional Birther audience doesn’t  start inventing their own. Birther Bog starts the ball rolling:

bog said…[Reply]
OK Listen up! Gilbert’s assertion of Obama having a different father is a cleverly disguised damage control in reverse. The true intent is to couple Obama with a father who is an American Citizen! This is propaganda to diffuse and negate the fact that Obama’s real father is not an American Citizen which therefor causes Obama to be ineligible! Think folks, think! Gilbert s a MOLE!

September 19, 2012 11:09 AM

bog said…[Reply]
Joel Gilbert’s DVD mailing blitz is propaganda to cause belief in Obama having a different father than the one that makes Obama ineligible to be President! Gilbert is a MOLE. Expose him! It may allow Obama to switch ships from the one which he is on currently. That one is sinking due to him not being a “natural born citizen” because of his true father being an Indonesian citizen. No one is contesting that fact.

September 19, 2012 11:26 AM

The Birthers Engaged In A Whack-A-Mole Hunt

Then, other Birthers join in the insanity, chasing down their own possible moles, frauds, and traitors, such as Martha Trowbridge:

@Anonymous at 4:17 PM

I’m afraid Mario Apuzzo, whom I consider one of the most principled lawyers working to uncover Obama’s ineligibility may have given Trowbridge’s idea too much exposure.

I personally became quite interested in her blog posts, but I now regret that because ultimately she chose to hold all her cards. Her long absence of late I think can only be understood as implying that she didn’t have any credible evidence after all.

If she had gathered solid evidence and possessed any integrity she would have released that evidence by now. She claims to have turned it over to authorities, I believe; however, that was months ago and no authorities have spoken up.

If she has remained silent in the hope that delaying the timing for her disclosure would produce maximum political leverage, I think she has waited a bit too long by now. The only possible advantage to be gained was arguably by waiting until Obama was the official DNC nominee–in order to prevent the Dems from having a quick fall-back candidate.

The nomination was two weeks ago and still Trowbridge remains silent. While I do not know her to be a fraud, I can now only assume for all practical purposes that she is.

Nevertheless, I am grateful for Gilbert’s film and glad it’s getting out. And, for that guy who is trying to say Gilbert is a mole, I would echo the sentiments of others: whether he’s technically eligible or not, simply proving that the White House website has published a forged Birth Certificate, which he continues to hide behind, should be more than sufficient to impugn him enough to utterly dash any hope he has of electability.

Martha, if you’re still out there and you still have secrets, don’t wait any longer. You are begging us to regard you as a fraud who deserves to be called out and dismissed as either horribly negligent or as one who seeks to subvert the cause of patriotism.

September 19, 2012 5:27 PM

and Birther John Doe, Sr. even digs up the Dead Breitbart to give him a whack:

John Doe Sr. said…[Reply]

“soetor hussein’s indonesian citizenship will soon be exposed by breitbart.”

If someone is looking for defense of Obama, I’d suggest Breitbart.com and not Joel Gilbert.

The Breitbart website apologized for revealing the 1991 booklet in which Obama described himself as born in Kenya. Breitbart said they thought he was lying….so, even if Obama tells the truth if he says the wrong thing….he is lying. That is how well the Alinsky demonization of “birthers” has worked.

September 19, 2012 1:24 PM

and Birther CanTone turns on Donald Trump and Karl Rove and gives his Pod People point and screech:

CanTone said…[Reply]
Well there’s only 6 more weeks to go. I really thought Trump would have said something by now. I’m sure Rove silenced him at the convention. But Trump doesn’t owe the GOP anything. I didn’t think hed mind embarrassing the R. Party. He knows what we do as does the GOP but I thought Trump would say it anyway. Looks like I was wrong. We are fucked.

September 19, 2012 7:18 PM

CanTone said…[Reply]
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again. I don’t care what they find. These judges are cowards and the (Karl Rove) GOP is happy to wait n see if they win in Nov. I think the GOP had rather lose than say anything. It’s up to us to do something. I’m sure someone will disagree. They always do. If enough people cared”like we do” maybe we could change things but sadly, not many care.

September 19, 2012 2:50 PM

I guess it is only natural that they turn on each. After all, they have met with defeat in every court challenge, and blaming the judges this many times comes off as silly. The Republican Party was so embarrassed that during its convention,  it crammed them in a dark closet with a flashlight, a blankie,  and a box of Fruit Loops and locked the door until the cameras went away. The September 22nd Birfapalooza couldn’t sell enough tickets to come off even in the Tea Party rich state of Arizona. Courts are beginning to assess them costs for wasting judicial time. And to top it all off,  they couldn’t even prevail in Kansas with a Republican-stacked board.

Birthers Turn To Dowsing To Find The Mole

While they are making some inroads selling the Birther silliness to the masses, they can not gain any real official traction. So there must be someone else to blame for all the losses. God Forbid, they should ever take a real hard look at their idiotic theories and suspicions.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Images.  These are from the 1956 Academy Award winning film in the Genre’d Confusion category, The Mole People. Here is a great place to read about it:


Note 2. Squeeky Suspicions. I wonder if the “Anonymous” in the Martha Trowbridge comment above is Mario Apuzzo, Esq.???  It has that “self-serving” feel to it. He bit on the Bari Shabazz thing, and then there was nothing. If it is him, he would do himself a service to openly renounce that nonsense, even if Martha asks for her Man of the Year Award back.

Note 3. Words: Mole:

noun /mōl/

A small burrowing insectivorous mammal with dark velvety fur, a long muzzle, and very small eyes

A spy who achieves over a long period an important position within the security defenses of a country

Someone within an organization who anonymously betrays confidential information

Eat Their Own. A reference to cannibalism, and mindless feeding. Here is a good Internet Article:


Note 4.  Another masterpiece of Birther legal theory which probably destroys Gilbert’s thesis of blood transmission of philosophical beliefs from father to son:

Anonymous said…[Reply]
Anon 2:03pm has it right. Citizenship is established at birth and not at conception. Assuming that Obama Senior was the legal father at birth, then it is his citizenship which was passed on to Obama Junior, and not that of the biological father.

September 19, 2012 6:31 PM

Jerome Corsi And The Frank Marshall Davis “Corruption of Blood” Smear

Corrupted Blood Wasn’t The Only Reason Corsi Stayed In The Booby Hatch

Jerome “Deputy Jerry” Corsi, Ph.D is not just sinking to personal lows in his latest attacks on Obama, but is now violating the very spirit of the  U.S. Constitution he proclaims so much to love.  And common decency to boot. Corsi is busily playing the Frank Marshall Davis (FMD) card over to the World Net Daily Gossip Magazine:

New research by Joel Gilbert into Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis’ seedy history in Hawaii has bolstered the filmmaker’s theory that Davis was the biological father of Barack Obama.

In a compilation of Davis poems published in the book “Black Moods,” compiled by his biographer, University of Kansas English Professor John Edgar Tidwell, are 37 “portraits” grouped in a section subtitled “Horizontal Cameos.” Each poem is dedicated to a different woman identified by her first name only. The second of these is dedicated to “Anne,” reading as follows:


In the gangling hours Thin, adolescent hours Before night runs softly Away into the west Anne rises wearily From her tired bed And sleeps Sitting in a chair.

“If ‘Flo’ was based on Margaret Burroughs,” Gilbert argues, “then I consider it very possible the character of ‘Anne’ is based on Ann Dunham.”

Here is a link to the garbage, and the above excerpt is relatively mild compared to some of the other smears there:


It isn’t just the logical stretches you have to perform to get from those few lines to the conclusion that FMD is Obama’s father. It’s the whole rationale for why anyone would care outside of some gossipy old women.  Legally, whoever or whatever Frank Marshall Davis may have been, our Constitution specifically forbids holding the sins of a father against the children.  Our Founding Fathers thought it wrong to punish children for the acts of their parents. Here it is in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2:

Article III – The Judicial Branch
Section 3

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Now, what is Corruption of Blood???  As a legal matter, Wiki explains it simply:

In English criminal law, attainder or attinctura is the metaphorical “stain” or “corruption of blood” which arises from being condemned for a serious capital crime ( felony or treason). It entails losing not only one’s property and hereditary titles, but typically also the right to pass them on to one’s heirs.  Both men and women condemned of capital crimes could be attainted.

Section 9 of Article One of the United States Constitution provides that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed by Congress. Article One, Section 10 forbids states from passing them.

Now this covers the legal aspects of corruption of blood, and Jerome Corsi as an individual has no power to breach any of this. But what about the moral aspects.  Here, Corsi violates  the spirit of the law by implying Obama is in some way tainted by the acts of his ancestors. You can be sure that this is his intent, because if the Frank Marshall Davis gossip/smear is true, then the  Birthers are kaput.

IF, Davis is Obama’s father, then he has two citizen parents, and the Vattel Birthers can go pound sand. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be a natural born citizen by statute, so the Birth Certificate Birthers can hit the unemployment line. So, there is no eligibility angle here, except to pop a double-tap into  Birtherism.

This only leaves Corsi two non-monetary excuses for printing this sort of crap.

1.  The prurient interest of the gossipy;

2.  The desire to smear Obama in any vile way possible.

Neither of those are decent excuses. Either one would send a normal person off to take a good hot shower with plenty of anti-bacterial soap. But Corsi doesn’t care. He is simply trying to imply that because Obama’s father was a communist, that somehow makes Obama a communist, too. And, to make it worse, Corsi is doing this without any real evidence of parentage.   I guess because Ronald Reagan’s father was a drunk, Corsi would find that a relevant story to run during election season. NOT.

But even it were true that Davis was Obama’s father, most human beings nowadays no longer impute the sins of the father to the children. As a species, we grew out of this nonsense centuries ago.  Why is Corsi trying to bring this horrible belief system back to life??? What’s next, slavery? Public hangings?

When you look at it that way, isn’t Jerome Corsi , and the whole bunch who are engaged in this smear, pretty gross and disgusting???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. the Image. This is from the 1922 German film, Nosferatu. The vampire is played by Max Shreck, which explains the Easter Egg.  Meanwhile, Shrek is the Ogre from the animated 2001 film, and sequels.

A “Seven Year Hitch” In Time Saves “9” (Or, Corsi Codes Blue)

Caught Without A Single Stitch, Much Less Nine

As noted at ConWebBlog,  Jerome “Deputy Jerry” Corsi is still playing games with the truth:

Jerome Corsi is either an idiot or utterly dishonest.

In a brief summary of the cold case posse “investigation” of Barack Obama’s “eligibility” in an Aug. 16 WorldNetDaily article, Corsi writes: “In addition, the team found computer codes handwritten on the Obama long-form birth certificate are inconsistent with information filled out on the form, suggesting the document had been altered.”

In fact, whatever coding system was used on Obama’s 1961 birth certificate , it clearly wasn’t the 1968 system Corsi, Mike Zullo and the rest of the posse used as evidence of an “altered” document.


As background, there are certain penciled in numbers on the online image of Obama’s long form birth certificate. These numbers were for the purpose of coding the information for subsequent computer input.  The confusion arises from the number “9” penciled in the block for “Race of Father.”  The block was filled in with “African”, which has reportedly sent large untold numbers into catatonic states.

A previous Internet Article from ConWebBlog explains how the Cold Case Posse screwed up by using the WRONG YEAR’S coding protocol:

Zullo’s coding error

During Cold Case Posse chief Mike Zullo’s July 17 press conference to announce the latest findings from his so-called investigation, he touted one item he purported to be a bombshell regarding handwritten codes on Obama’s long-form birth certificate, as WND reporter:

The codes seen on the document issued by the White House are not consistent with the          information entered into the various fields, indicating the document has been altered or amended.

In the coding system, the number 9 indicates the information is not stated, meaning there should not be any information in the box in which the number is written.

However, the number 9 can be seen written in pencil next to the fields for “Usual Occupation,” “Kind of Business or Industry” and “Race of Father” on Obama’s document. Each of those fields are filled with information.

“This proves the document has been tampered with and information has been placed on it,” Zullo said.

In fact, according to the Obama Conspiracy site, Zullo is citing a coding system established in 1968, which would not apply to a birth certificate from 1961. The coding system at that time [1961] defined the number 9 as “other nonwhite.” Given that the number was found in the box for the race of Obama’s father, this may explain why his race is listed as “African” — it may be nothing more than a 50-year-old misguided notion that a black man from Africa was not a “Negro.”

Here is a link for the full story:


And here is a link to Dr. Conspiracy’s story on the coding, including the mysterious number 9:


Obviously, the “9” on the image of Obama’s  long form birth certificate is CORRECT, and the Cold Cut Posse is once more, full of baloney.  They used a book to check coding that wasn’t even invented for seven more years.

Sooo, a seven year hitch in time saves “9”. 

Oh, I just love it when you can work puns and word plays into a post!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Puns and word Plays.  This is for people who may be ESL, which is English as a second language.

Seven year hitch is a word play on seven year itch.  Hitch, of course, means a problem. And there is a seven year time difference between the 1961 code book and the 1968 book.

The Seven Year Itch usually refers to a psychological term that suggests that happiness declines after around year seven after a marriage. Sometimes, seven year itch means scabies, or a parasitic skin infection. or, a movie as noted below. For the Image caption, stitch is a slangish term for clothing.

A hitch in time saves 9 is a word play on the old adage, a stitch in time saves nine, about which Wikitionary says:

Proverb: a stitch in time saves nine

Etymology: From the practice of knitting.

A little effort expended sooner to fix a small problem, prevents it from becoming a larger problem requiring more effort to fix later; A little preparation can eliminate the need for repairs later; consistency (achieving a set rhythm) is better than trying to rush ahead.

Code Blue” is generally used to indicate a patient requiring resuscitation or otherwise in need of immediate medical attention, most often as the result of a respiratory arrest or cardiac arrest. Blue also means sad, which I imagine is how Jerome Corsi and the Cold Case Posse felt after learning they used the wrong year’s manual, assuming the mistake was unintentional.

Note 2. The Image.  This is Marilyn Monroe from the 1955 film, The Seven Year Itch. August , 2012 was the 50th anniversary of her death,  so I am happy I could work her into an Internet Article. This movie included this famous Subway Dress image:

Free Republic Tells “The Dianna” To STFU About Santorum Birtherism!!!

The Dianna Opens Its Mouth. . . It Takes The Sock. . . It Puts The Sock In Its Mouth. . .

Thanks to Patrick McKinnon of Bad Fiction, I learned that Dianna Cotter aka The Dianna was told rather bluntly by Free Republic to shut up about Rick Santorum not being a natural born citizen. Here are a few excerpts:

“To: Danae
Don’t post like an ass. Santorum is a natural born citizen. Give it a rest. Continue attacking our posters as you are and you will get the boot from FR! Go somewhere else to post such nonsense.
90 posted on March 18, 2012 3:49:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is not just brewing, rebellion is here!!)”

“To: Danae
Don’t be an idiot. Continue attacking our conservative candidates with this nonsense and or our conservative FReepers you’re going to get the boot from FR. Take your fantasies elsewhere. America hating communist propaganda rag Pravda is appropriate. Wake up.
96 posted on March 18, 2012 5:39:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is not just brewing, rebellion is here!!)”

There is more at the Bad Fiction link:


I have to admit to taking some personal satisfaction from The Dianna’s tongue lashing. I debated her several times and she was annoyingly dense and her head was sooo far up Leo Donofrio’s rear end that the doctors mistook it for Leo’s tonsils.  Plus, the Free Republic Birthers, as a group, are the most cowardly bunch I have ever seen and they can’t wait  to zot or run off anybody who shows them up for the idiots they are.  They got me zotted, but I did get pictures of them wailing and whining:


And, in another Internet Article here about The Dianna, I said:

Sooo, what’s a Good Birther to do when they have this earth-shattering story and Americans do a collective yawn??? Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a country where people didn’t find crooked investigations, abuse of power, and money-grubbing Polizei out of the ordinary??? Somewhere like maybe a former communist country where American ideas of fairness seem pollyanny??? Hmmm. Oh yes!!! RUSSIA!!!

This shows how far the Birthers have sunk in their  mad attempt to get Obama on this issue. Cotter’s story was even carried at that Bastion Of Conservatism, Free Republic, with nary a whimper from the anti-commie crowd there:

Sooo, it was nice to see somebody there did notice the former SSR where she was posting. Meanwhile, over at Free Republic, some of the Birthers, like rxsid, are still chafing at the bit:

To: Admin Moderator; God-fear-republican

Santorum birtherism is not welcome on FR. His father served in the military in WWII, aptly demonstrating his loyalty. There is also a document on the internet that shows Italy revoked Aldo Santorum’s citizenship back in the 1930s.

There doesn’t appear to be a law, prior to Rick Santorum being born, that automatically made aliens serving/served in the military (WWII or other) U.S. citizens. Santorumm’s father, therefore, would have had to initiate and go through the naturalization process himself.

The McCarran-Walter Act, 1952, made aliens who served for 5 years eligible to be perminant lawful residents:

Act June 30, 1950, ch. 443, § 4,64 Stat. 316, as amended June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, § 402(e),66 Stat. 276, provided that: “Notwithstanding the dates or periods of service specified and designated in section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [this section], the provisions of that section are applicable to aliens enlisted or reenlisted pursuant to the provisions of this Act and who have completed five or more years of military service, if honorably discharged therefrom. Any alien enlisted or reenlisted pursuant to the provisions of this Act who subsequently enters the United States, American Samoa, Swains Island, or the Canal Zone, pursuant to military orders shall, if otherwise qualified for citizenship, and after completion of five or more years of military service, if honorably discharged therefrom, be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence within the meaning of such section 329(a) [subsection (a) of this section].”


Furthermore, if in fact Aldo’s citizenship was revoked by Italy back in the 1930’s, that would essentially make his father “stateless” until his father went through the naturalization process on his own.

The naturalization papers (proof) of Aldo Santorum is what people are demanding.

The citizens of this country deserve to know if a candidate (any candidate, including Republicans) is eligible for the public elected office they seek.


Maybe some of the Birthers there will get the ZOT!.  It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Maria Callas from the opera Medea.