Tag Archives: reality

Are The Birthers Gaslighting Themselves???

gas flame_phixr

After Eating 32 Ounces Of Beans, Carl Gallups Demonstrates Advanced Gas Lighting Techniques

Well, Poo Poo Simmons has discovered Gaslighting! Here are a few excerpts. First, we get The Buildup Of Tension:

EYE OPENER! The Obama BC Fraud Technique Revealed

Are YOU Being ‘Gaslighted?’   YES – you are…

PPSIMMONS: Does this technique explain the Obama Fraud case frustration?  Read on…we think your eyes will be opened.

Next, we get some Basic Gaslighting Theory:

GASLIGHTING – From Wikipedia

Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception, and sanity. Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

The term “gaslighting” has been used colloquially since at least the 1970s to describe efforts to manipulate someone’s sense of reality. In a 1980 book on child sex abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor’s 1944 film version of Gas Light, and writes, “even today the word [gaslight] is used to describe an attempt to destroy another’s perception of reality.” The term was further popularized in Victor Santoro’s 1994 book Gaslighting: How to Drive Your Enemies Crazy, which outlines ostensibly legal tactics the reader might use to annoy others.

Then, we get some alleged examples, including:

6. Gov’t: No, we did not forge the Birth Certificate of the POTUS. Yes, the multilayer, computer generated, wrong-information document is the real thing! Yes, Obama really is a citizen of the U.S. Yes, he really is constitutionally qualified to hold office….

Gov’t when caught:  You silly nillys! You will NEVER catch us on this one!  Not a single congressman, MSM person, Governor, or AG will touch it!  Why?   See numbers 1-3 above!   You silly nillys!

Gov’t when REALLY caught: Okay, the BC was forged and fabricated. But we think that Gallups and Zullo did it! Maybe we need to lock ’em up – you know for national security reasons!  You silly nillys!

Finally, we get the hook-setting conclusion:

OOPS!  You’ve been gaslighted!


Like most Birthers on most things, Poo Poo misses the whole point of gaslighting. First, he does not show any example where the Gov’t presents any false information about a pre-existing memory or perception. That is what gaslighting is all about. In the 1944  movie, Gaslight, a picture disappears from the walls of the house, and Gregory(Boyer) says that Paula(Bergman) took it, but Paula has no recollection of having done so.  BUT, Paula had a pre-existing memory and perception of the picture being there, and no  memory of having moved it. Gregory provided the false information that she moved it.

Poo Poo Simmons, the other Birthers, and most of the rest of the world have no pre-existing memory or perception of any Obama birth certificate prior to its presentation on the Internet. To constitute gaslighting, the original short form or long form presented on the Internet would first have to be changed, or withdrawn, and then the Gov’t would have to convey false information to the Birthers that it had not been either changed or ever there in the first place. Which the Gov’t clearly has not done.

The examples given by Poo Poo, assuming arguendo that they were correct, would simply constitute run-of-the-mill lies or falsehoods, not gaslighting. Sooo, why is Poo Poo Simmons even making the childish and overblown claim of gaslighting??? Like most QUACKS, it is the appearance of intelligence and expertise that is important. Poo Poo is simply trying to make himself look smarter than he really is. You see the same thing when Mario Apuzzo, Esq. tries to cobble Logical Syllogisms into his Birther legal theories when such techniques are totally inappropriate in situations where the major premises themselves which are at issue. (See Note 1, below.)

But, by calling it gaslighting, then the whole argument takes on a sinister cast where Birthers can play the innocent victims. And Poo Poo can assume the role of the wise and intelligent voice of authority who reveals the evil plan. Such is not only incorrect, it is almost the opposite of the truth. The reality is, that it is the Birthers who are closer to gaslighting both Birthers and non-Birthers. Let me give you just two examples.

1. Most of us have some memory of high school civics class, and no memory whatsoever of anybody called Emer de Vattel. The Birthers try to supplant our non-existent memory with false memories of Vattel and his alleged two citizen parents theory of natural born citizenship. There are actually some people who now claim to remember being taught about Vattel in this light, and absolutely NO TEXTBOOKS which support that memory.

2. Most of us who follow this issue have a memory and perception of listening to and reading Deputy Mike “The Arizona Kid” Zullo telling us that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Obama of jaywalking, much less anything else. Now, the Birthers are trying to convince us that Zullo is on the verge of a major breakthrough not because of any new discoveries, but by access to Very Important Persons. This, of course must supplant our previous memory not through denial, or claim of mistake, but repetition.

Note that I used the wiggle phrase, closer to gaslighting, because I am hesitant to call either of my hypotheticals pure examples of gaslighting. They are probably better characterized as primitive attempts at spinning, with a heavy side order of plain old lying. I would submit that if the Birthers feel frustrated and feel doubtful of their sanity, and suspect someone of mental abusing them, then they should simply look in the nearest mirror. Because they are doing this to themselves.

Does anybody else smell rotten eggs???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. For an example of Apuzzo’s sashay into Putative Pedantics,  see:


Note 2. Gaslighting. Here are some better examples of gaslighting from the Wiki article on the 1944 movie, Gaslight:

After Alice’s things are packed away in the attic and the door blocked, things take a turn for the bizarre. At the Tower of London, Paula loses a brooch that Gregory had given her, despite its having been stored safely in her handbag. A picture disappears from the walls of the house, and Gregory says that Paula took it, but Paula has no recollection of having done so. Paula also hears footsteps coming from above her, in the sealed attic, and sees the gaslights dim and brighten for no apparent reason. Gregory suggests that these are all figments of Paula’s imagination.

Gregory does everything in his power to isolate his wife from other people. He allows her neither to go out nor to have visitors, implying he is doing so for her own good, because her nerves have been acting up, causing her to become a kleptomaniac and to imagine things that are not real. On the one occasion when he does take her out to a musical gathering at a friend’s house, he shows Paula his watch chain, from which his watch has mysteriously disappeared. When he finds it in her handbag, she becomes hysterical, and Gregory takes her home. She sees why she should not go out in public.

Gregory does everything in his power to isolate his wife from other people. He allows her neither to go out nor to have visitors, implying he is doing so for her own good, because her nerves have been acting up, causing her to become a kleptomaniac and to imagine things that are not real. On the one occasion when he does take her out to a musical gathering at a friend’s house, he shows Paula his watch chain, from which his watch has mysteriously disappeared. When he finds it in her handbag, she becomes hysterical, and Gregory takes her home. She sees why she should not go out in public.



Fromm Sir, With Love. (Or, Dressing Down Sam Sewell)

Too Many Skirts Makes It Hard To CYA

Birther Sam Sewell, of The Steady Drip blog, recently penned a short piece, Children of the Beast. He explains the underlying analogy in this fashion:

Most people see the conflict between limited government and big government as a political battle between conservatives and liberals. This conflict is much more profound than political theory can encompass. In this essay the metaphor of “The Beast” is used to represent big government, and “Children of The Beast” to reveal the nature of those who support, or are dependent upon, big government.

You can find the whole thing here.


I don’t intend to review the whole article because that isn’t within the purview of this website.  But the fact that Sewell drags observations by psychologist and philosopher Erich Fromm into it does get my attention. First, here is the Fromm excerpt:

What is the human motivation that allows people to overlook the dangers of “The Beast” and choose a politician for his charming personality traits, rather than donning the warrior spirit capable of subduing “The Beast?”  A partial answer to that question was provided by Erich Fromm in his book “Escape from Freedom.”   He moved from Germany to the United States in 1938, giving witness to his love of freedom.  Freud thought human personality was determined by conditioning having an effect on biology. Marx saw peoples’ lives as determined by their society and economic systems.  Erich Fromm challenged these two reigning intellectual systems of his time with the idea of freedom.

Freedom is a difficult thing to have, and Fromm believed that when they can, the unenlightened man tends to flee from it. Escaping from freedom is now an important motivating factor of our species.  Because the need to escape from individual freedom emerged in human consciousness, mass movements began to appear in human society.  Fromm sheds light on the dynamics with these two quotes:

“The person who gives up his individual self and becomes an automaton, identical with millions of other automatons around him, need not feel alone and anxious any more. The price he pays, however, is high; it is the loss of his self.”

“This loss of identity then makes it still more imperative to conform, it means that one can be sure of oneself only if one lives up to the expectations of others. If we do not live up to this picture, we not only risk disapproval and increased isolation, but we risk losing the identity of our personality, which means jeopardizing sanity.”

Erich Fromm can tell us a lot about what is behind how most people vote. He makes the point that most people are terrified of being an on-their-own, take-care-of-themselves, free, adult human being.

True, Erich Fromm teaches that unenlightened people tend to escape from the reality of their own freedom. But what gives any Birther the moral right to opine about that, when the single most distinguishing characteristic of any Birther is the wholesale denial of  reality???

And then Sewell blithely pops off with the “mass movements began to appear in human society” remark??? WTF is Birtherism if not the bad kind of mass movement that Fromm so feared, one based on paranoia, delusion, lies, and irrationality.

And this is coming from a Mensa member??? An ex-military officer??? A psychotherapist and clergyman??? Oh no, Sam Sewell, you don’t get to skirt this issue!. You are a prominent person in the Birther movement. Your group either can’t figure out, or bring themselves to admit two simple facts:

1. That there is no two citizen parent requirement;

2. There is a verified Birth Certificate showing Obama was born in Hawaii.

Birthers cling like torpedo survivors on a rubber life raft to the most insane and bizarre belief system to come along since the Heaven’s Gate cult boarded the Mother Ship, and here you are, a supposed clergyman,  playing the role of Marshall Applewhite and selling tickets to the Hale-Bopp Express. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Some of these poor stupid deluded Birthers are just people who don’t know any better.  All the Vattel crap, and the quack legal mumbo-jumbo is over the heads of a lot of them. They are just repeating the nonsense they hear from gurus, slicksters, and liars.  But I don’t think that is true of you.

Personally, I don’t think you believe any of the stupid Birther crap. If your background is what you say it is, you’re not that stupid. It doesn’t take a Mensan to understand the court decisions that have come down over the past year, or the Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny decisions, either. It doesn’t take a Mensan to recognize the significance of a verified birth certificate when it comes to figuring out where Obama was born. Particularly in the near-complete absence of any contrary information.  But then again, I could be wrong. Maybe you are not that smart after all. In the Sane Society, Erich Fromm also noted:

In observing the quality of thinking in alienated man, it is striking to see how his intelligence has developed and how reason has deteriorated. . . . Even from the nineteenth century to our day, there seems to have occurred an observable increase in stupidity, if by this we mean the opposite to reason, rather than to intelligence.

Well, Sam . . . Which is it??? Liar or idiot???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a photo of Judy Geeson, who played Pamela Darein the 1967 film,  To Sir, With Love.  That is a movie about a dedicated teacher who tries to bring enlightenment to a bunch of disrespectful and rowdy brats. Kind of like me, trying to educate Birthers.

And, on the word play, many skirts (mini skirts), before you say , “That’s a mini-dress not a mini-skirt!”  True, mini-dress is more appropriate, but it has  a “mini skirt” in that a “skirt” is also a part of a garment:

skirt (noun):

1. The part of a garment, such as a dress or coat, that hangs freely from the waist down.
2. A garment hanging from the waist and worn by women and girls.

skirt (verb)

1. To avoid, go around the edge of, or keep distant from (something that is controversial, risky, etc.): The senator skirted the issue.

Note 2. The Image Easter Egg.  A word play on the line,  and Sweeney guards the Horn’d gate  from T.S.Eliot’s “Sweeny Among The Nightingales.”

Here is a adequate explanation:

The circles of the stormy moon
Slide westward toward the River Plate,
Death and the Raven drift above
And Sweeney guards the horn’d gate.

Sweeney’s laughter belies the ominous mood of the evening. Outside, the moon trails westward in a stormy sky toward the River Plate (Spanish: Ro de la Plata, meaning River of Silver.) Ravens gather and the air reeks of death. Inside, Sweeney is on the threshold of sleep, guarding an exit gate from Hades, one made of horn.

In Homer’s Odyssey, Penelope, the wife of Odysseus (Ulysses),says dreams arise from phantoms in Hades and pass through either of two gates. One is a gate of ivory; through it pass false dreams that confuse the dreamer. The other is a gate of polished horn; through it pass “images of truth . . . with visions manifest of future fate” (The Odyssey, Book XIX, “The Discovery of Ulysses to Euryclea.” Alexander Pope, translator).

Apparently, Sweeney does not wish to know or does not care to know what the future holds for him. He is probably unaware of the ominous portents of nature suggesting that his death may be near, although he seems to become aware later (Stanza 7) that he may be in danger.

Ro de la Plata (River of Silver) could be a very oblique allusion to Agamemnon’s bathtub, which had silver sides.


No doubt a hedg’d gate has some meaning, also. . .

Note 3. Links. Sam Sewell’s blog, The Steady Drip,  is located here:


The Princess Miki Syndrome

Princess Miki Took A Stab At Getting Rid Of Obstacles

Princess Miki (aka Miki “The Mad Hawaiian” Booth aka Miki Mouth) continues her Scorched Earth campaign to peddle her book, Memoirs of a Community Organizer From Hawaii. After having done the math, Princess Miki has decided that she can raise the rating of her book from 3 Stars to 5 Stars if only she can get rid of those pesky bad reviews. At present there are 10 reviews with 1 star and 10 reviews with 5 stars. The following letter from her came to me via a third party on Orly’s World FaceBook Group:

Dear Brent,

Please contact Amazon about the attacks on my book, Memoirs of a Community Organizer from Hawai’i and on me personally. The people who are posting the negative attack “reviews” have been stalking me on the internet for over two years. I have proof of that on Facebook, KHON TV2 Hawai’i, Youtube and many internet blogs. Yesterday Feb 28 Partrick J. Coliano posted the same ugly so-called “review”, in fact, THE SAME WORD FOR WORD ATTACK he posted on Feb 19. This is a deliberate willful attempt to drive ratings down and discredit my book. Read the comments he, Cindy Gough Montgomery, another “Pat” and the …others “tag-teaming” attacks against the people that leave good reviews. Now readers are thinking twice before leaving a review.

A “badge of honor” doesn’t sell books. What they are doing is wrong and I would think illegal especially when I know these are the same people that are connected to the hate sites behind the death threats against Attorney Orly Taitz, Dr. Kate Vandemoer, Sharon Rondeau, myself and many others who question Barack Hussein Obama’s historical narrative. The bloggers are classically using a psychological attack weapon against us. Their hate for anyone speaking out against Obama shows plainly in their vitriolic “reviews” and the commitment they have to wearing us down.

Sources I will keep confidential for obvious reasons, contacted Amazon to complain and were rebuffed. Before we set a timeframe for the week-long Amazon.Kindle radio blitz with the offer to read my book free we must resolve what seems to be Amazon’s siding with a group tasked with killing sales of Memoirs of a Community Organizer from Hawai’i.

I notice that Princess Miki is pulling out the OctPawpsychological attack weapon” excuse which the Birther Princess Types (like Princess Martha Trowbridge) use whenever they sow the winds of idiocy and reap the whirlwinds of ridicule. There is an internet Article here about it:


I see this as one symptom of the Princess Miki Syndrome (PMS), initially caused when the Birther Princess Types (male and female)  cocoon themselves in their Little Birther Echo Chambers. Inside the Chamber, life is nice, and there is much gurgling and cooing. New World Order Birthers lay down peacefully beside Vattel Birthers whose backsides are spooned up against the Phony Online Image Birthers. It is a happy, warm, and inbred little Birther love nest.  Any idiotic proposition gets congratulatory High Fives as long as it slams Obama, or the Anti-Birthers and Obots. Inside, Miki is a Princess.

Then, when the Birthers, like Princess Miki, leave the hive and venture forth outside into the Real World, they run smack dab into a Patrick Colliano, who says in his Amazon review, Very Angry…and Completely Unsubstantiated, February 28, 2012:

Miki’s “memoir” is nothing more than thinly-disguised birther propaganda. If you have an obsessive hatred of the President and are unable to accept anything short of his being declared ineligible then removed from office to be imprisoned or executed then add to that a confirmation bias that requires no evidence whatsoever to accept the most far-flung accusations, I would absolutely recommend this book.

For anyone else, this book may be a little hard to take. The author’s seething, roiling anger comes through with a stark clarity that is extremely unsettling. There are moments, as she discusses some idiotic birther notion (all of which she accepts without question…and without evidence), that her hatred and anger seems so great it can scarcely be contained. The Secret Service would be well-advised not to let her anywhere near the president.

Dispassionate observers of the eligibility non-debate are apt to be less than impressed. The author simply glibly rattles off long-refuted birther accusations with solid conviction yet gives no evidence to support any of them. The author seems to believe that vehemence is a substitute for evidence. Her rationale seems to be along the lines of, “It’s true, because I said it’s true!” She flings accusations with wild abandon, expecting that mere fervor makes them fact.

While the book is a transparent effort to forward the birther movement, Miki reveals enough about herself to show a pretty ugly side. She plainly admits, “I didn’t like Muslims,” and apparently sees nothing wrong with laughing at anti-Muslim jokes. Which makes her observation, “…you cannot argue with those whose minds are shut” a staggering piece of irony.

Miki also reveals a bit about herself that might suggest where her perpetual anger comes from: it seems she has spent some time married to an abuser. I’m not a shrink, but if I knew her personally, I would encourage her to seek professional help. Other comments she makes seem to confirm this idea. She had, for instance, convinced herself that her phone had been tapped, and that Obama had personally engineered the financial crisis.

On and on with the conspiracy theories, paranoid fears, and relentless intense anger. It’s an unnerving and creepy piece of writing, disconcerting for the wrong reasons. It doesn’t lead the reader to be concerned for the state of politics so much as for the author’s emotional well-being.

Or, she hits the Thomas Brown Speed Bump Of Sanity, who writes in his Amazon review, Utter and total garbage. A waste of good trees., February 18, 2012:

No non-fiction value whatsoever. Perhaps amusing as prurient fiction for America-haters and racist traitors, but otherwise useful only as a door-stop or fly-swatter. But factually? Lies, lies, and more lies. Every assertion made that our President is not who he says he is, is ineligible for his office, or is out to destroy America has either been completely de-bunked, or is so laughable as to not merit refutation.

Posterity will bear this out. To date, 100 Birfer lawsuits have failed, and every court in the land has found and will find that Mr. Obama is eligible for the office. Birtherism will go down in history as a pathetic failure, and Mr. Obama will be remembered as an exceptional leader of the Free World. And “community organizer” is dog-whistle doublespeak the wingnuts use because they can no longer call our President the n-word and bark “Show us your papers, boy!”

Consider: all disprovers of Birther clap-trap can give actual references. Drivel like this stinking pant-load from Ms. Booth only make unsupported assertions. Or if they provide supporting quotes, they selectively edit them so they agree with their pathetic, un-American agenda. Who can we cite in support of Obama’s eligibility? Why, lets’s start with the Congressional Research Service Report on Presidential Eligibility. The Birthers will tell you “they’re part of the cover-up!”


Personally, I wouldn’t deign to urinate on this ludicrous, transparently self-serving pile of steaming propaganda if it was on fire. I would grin and watch it burn.

God bless America, and deliver her from wackos like this “author.”

This kind of impact has to be quite a shock to the Birther emotional system.  It is like someone waking you up with a gallon of ice cold water over the head. Repeatedy. Pretty soon, you are sleeping with one eye open. No wonder Princess Miki is whining about “psychological attack weapons.” From princess to peasant in less than a second. But, when you write an EMOTION filled screed, and don’t rely on FACTS, than any negative review is of necessity, less a review of the FACTS and more a review of the EMOTIONS. And the Author.

Fortunately, the cure is pretty simple. Birthers should just get out in the Real World more often. More contact with sane and rational people and less contact with batpoop crazy Birthers, and one’s whole World View might change. It is the reason your parents did not want you hanging around with the Wrong Crowd. There will still be disagreements, but they won’t be viewed as assaults upon one’s psyche. Even a Princess Miki can be cured. Hopefully, one day, she will write a book about being trapped in The Birther Cult, and how she escaped. Now that would be worth reading.

As a side issue, this little tidbit emerged from Princess Miki’s Magic Kingdom:

Miki Booth: Charles Manson’s groupie Squeeky Fromm did a hit piece on me calling me, Mickey Mouth “The Mad Hawaiian” I’m flattered by the names and her attempt to trash me only worked on her fans who went rabid. LOL

Sooo, if any of my fans have not had their shots, please get them now. Rabies is nothing to play around with!!! Just look at Jerome Corsi. You don’t want to end up like that, do you???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a picture of Joan Sutherland playing the role of Lucia, in the Opera,  Lucia di Lammermoor. Here is a youtube video of her playing The Mad Scene:

Wiki notes:

The plot of Sir Walter Scott’s original novel is based on an actual incident that took place in 1669 in the Lammermuir Hills area of  Lowland Scotland. The real family involved were the Dalrymples. While the libretto retains much of Scott’s basic intrigue, it also contains very substantial changes in terms of characters and events. In Scott’s novel, it is her mother, Lady Ashton, not Enrico, who is the villain and evil perpetrator of the whole intrigue. Also, Laird of Bucklaw was only wounded by Lucia after their unfortunate wedding, and he later recovered, went abroad, and survived them all.

In the opera, Lucia’s descent into insanity is more speedy and dramatic and very spectacular, while, in the book, it is a little bit mysterious and ambiguous. Also, in the novel, Edgardo and Lucia’s last talk and farewell (supervised by her mother) is far less melodramatic and more calm, though the final effect is equally devastating for both of them. At the end of the novel, Master of the Ravenswood disappears (his body never found) and is presumably killed in some sort of an accident on his way to have his duel with Lucia’s older brother; therefore, he does not commit a spectacular, operatic style suicide with a stiletto on learning of Lucia death.

Maybe this is where Stiletto Hills came from???

The Alternate Reality Universe of Leo Donofrio (A White Paper)

Try As They Might With The WABAC Machine, Every Time The Vattel Birthers Managed To Change Natural Born Citizenship In All The Textbooks, Prohibition Remained In Effect

One of the two-citizen parent Birthers, Leo Donofrio, is really doubling down on the Minor v. Happersett case as being precedent for determining natural born citizenship, and is acting like some minor boo-boos (pun intended) linking the case on a internet law research website, Justia, is the crime of the century.  According to this alternate reality theory, this 1875 women’s voting rights case, defined natural born citizenship, even though the judges in that case clearly said they did not need to resolve that issue.  Here is Donofrio’s latest off-planet trip:


About alternate realities, Wiki says:

A parallel universe or alternative reality is a hypothetical self-contained separate reality coexisting with one’s own.  While the terms “parallel universe” and “alternative reality” are generally synonymous and can be used interchangeably in most cases, there is sometimes an additional connotation implied with the term “alternative reality” that implies that the reality is a variant of our own.

Typically, parallel universes fall into two classifications. The first may be more accurately called a “diverging universe” whereby two versions of Earth share a common history up to a point of divergence. At this point, the outcome of some even happens differently on the two Earths and the histories continue to become more different as time elapses since that point.

It is like the stories where everything on Earth is the same, up until the Nazi Germans get the atomic bomb first, and win World War II. That is the same type of thing that Leo Donofrio and the other Vattle Birthers (my humorous term for the Vattel disciples) are trying to put over on people. That in 1875, the Minor v. Happersett case provided the definition of natural born citizenship. Fortunately, we can determine if this theory is fact or fiction by reviewing the history since 1875 to see if reality really did diverge down the two-citizen parent path as it would have if Donofrio was right.

Following are 21 instances ranging from mundane entries in encyclopedias to law review articles and even a SCOTUS case, where the reality of this universe diverges from the alternate reality universe of Leo Donfrio.  Timewise, these examples begin shortly after the Minor v. Happersett decision and cover the time period until the 2009 “One To Grow On.”  This list could easily have been 5 times as long. In none of these instances is there even a whiff of the two-citizen parent foolishness. Most flatly state the exact opposite, that natural born simply means born in the United States.

1. 1876 the American Law Review mentioned Minor v. Happersett as a voting rights case, and says nothing about the case defining natural born citizenship.


2.1876 Tuttle’s New History of America by Charles Tuttle:

13. — The Executive. This power is vested in the President, who is chosen by electors from the several states, and his term of office is four years. Every state is entitled to as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress. The Vice President who is ex-officio President of the senate, and who in certain events may become President of the United States, is chosen in a similar manner at the same time with the President. The Chief Executive and the Vice President must be native born citizens of the United States, residing within the states fourteen years, and the Constitution further demands that they shall have attained the age of thirty-five years.


3. 1878 Elements of International Law by Henry Wheaton:

There is no uniform rule among nations by which the nationality of a person may be determined from the place of his birth. England, America and the majority of South American states claim all who are born within their dominions, as natural born birth in subjects or citizens, whatever may have been the parents’ nationality;


4. 1879 Outline for Civil Governement Designed For Common Schools by W.. Thatcher:

Art. II., Sec. i, Clause 5.—Qualifications of the President.

No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirtyfive years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

(a.) Natural born.—Born in the United States. Our state constitution does not thus limit the office of its executive.

(6.) Fourteen years resident.—That he may be thoroughly conversant with its affairs. He may be absent from the United States as an ambassador, or in official duty as a United States officer. Buchanan was minister at the Court of St. James (Great Britain), when nominated for President.


5. 1880 Chester Arthur runs for Vice-President.  His father was Irish, and not a citizen when Arthur was born, but the only objections to his eligibility were that Arthur was born in either Ireland, or in Canada. The Vattle Birthers try to explain this away claiming that nobody knew Arthur’s father was Irish, but that claim falls flat in light of the fact his political opponents accused Chester Arthur of being born in Ireland.

6. 1881, Judge Waite swears in Chester Arthur. Waite, who wrote the Minor v. Happersett decision, actually swears in Chester Arthur as President, even though he supposedly ruled 6 years earlier that it took two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.


7. 1883, An exposition of the constitution of the United States By Albert Orville Wright.

All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner
may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized.  (See page 88.)


8. 1886, Outlines of international law: with an account of its origin and sources and … By George Breckenridge Davis

(d.) The municipal laws of every state enumerate and define the rights and privileges which may be acquired by its naturalized citizens. In no case do such persons acquire all the privileges of native-born citizens. The most usual restrictions apply to the holding of political and military office, the highest grades of which, in every state, can only be filled by native-born citizens. In the United States, whose policy of naturalization is extremely liberal, the offices of President and Vice-President can only be held by native-born citizens.


9. 1888 The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with … By William Cox Cochran

Natural, according to nature; not artificial, exceptional, or violent. Natural allegiance, that perpetual obedience which is due from all natural-born subjects to their sovereign, as distinguished from local allegiance, which is only temporary. Natural-born citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.


10. 1889 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

That Congress shall be in session on the second Wednesday of February succeeding every meeting of the electors, and the certificates trom them shall then be opened, the votes counted and the persons to fill the offices of President and Vice-President ascertained and declared agreeably to the Constitution. It provides also that no one shall be eligible to these offices unless he be 35 years old and be born in the United States.


11. 1898, The American passport: its history and a digest of laws, rulings and … By United States. Dept. of State, Gaillard Hunt


All persons born in the United States, except such as are born in foreign embassies or legations and Indians untaxed, are natural-born citizens of the United States; and a person born abroad whose father was at the time of his birth a citizen. . .


12. 1898, David Shephard Garland et al, THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW, 2d Ed. Vol. 6 (1898):

[Citizenship Chapter – How Citizenship Acquired]
2. By Birth in Jurisdiction. — Natural citizenship is created by birth within the jurisdiction of the United States.1 To be a citizen of the United States [18] by reason of birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but must also be born subject to its jurisdiction; that is, in its power and obedience.

13. 1898 Wong Kim Ark. SCOTUS case which does NOT cite Minor v. Happersett to define natural born citizenship, and instead cites the case for holding that the term must be defined by resort to English common law, and for the statement that there are only two sources of citizenship those being birth and naturalization.

More importantly, and what must really sting the Vattle Birthers, is that Minor v. Happersett is NOT even cited by the dissent in Wong Kim Ark for the purposes of defining citizenship.

14. 1910 Raleigh C. Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910)

Note: Mr. Minor was Professor at the University of Virginia (per above link).

“I. Citizenship of the United States.
This subject must be discussed with reference to two distinct periods in our history, the first, from the inception of the Constitution to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868; the second, from the passage of the Amendment to the present.

The original Constitution had conferred upon Congress the express power to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” and had declared that “no person except a natural-born citizen * * * shall be eligible to the office of President.” It had also, in defining the eligibility of Senators and Representatives in Congress, declared that they shall have been “citizens of the United States” for a prescribed period. Thus, the Constitution itself recognized that there was a classification of citizens into natural-born and naturalized, but it nowhere defined who should be deemed citizens.

Where then was the government to look for a definition? The natural answer, in view of our system of municipal law, was to con-[66]sult the common law of England, to which we had been subject as Colonies, and to modify that by such legislative acts of Congress as might be needful to adapt it to our conditions. At least this was what was actually done, and the right of Congress, under the original Constitution, thus to modify the common-law doctrine as it might see fit, has never been seriously questioned.

The rule of the common law is that citizenship turns upon the place of birth, and that one born within the jurisdiction, even though of alien parents, is a citizen by birth, or, as the Constitution expresses it, a natural-born citizen; and this rule has been very generally recognized and enforced by all the departments of the government. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 655 et seq.; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 583; 9 Ops. Atty.-Gcn. 373; 10 Id. 382, 394.”

15.  1914 Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).:

“NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 D. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. Under certain circumstances persons born outside the territorial limits of the United States are deemed natural-born citizens, as for example, children of American citizens visiting or traveling abroad. The father must, however, at some time have resided in the United States. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President. See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law of. References: G. W. Garner, Intro, to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, Citizenship of U. S. (1904).”

16.  1967 McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967)
As quoted by Pryor (881, n.2):

“It is clear that under the English common law this term ‘natural born’ meant ‘native born.’… It was this genuine ‘native-born’ citizen … to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term ‘natural-born citizens’ as one of the qualifications for the President”

17. 1968 Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, at 7-8 (1968)
As quoted by Pryor (881, n.2) – In arguing that both those born in the U.S. and those born outside the U.S. to US citizen parents are eligible to be President:

“[T]he leading British authorities agree that under the early common law, status as a natural-born subject probably was acquired only by those born within the realm, but that the statutes .. enabled natural-born subjects to transmit equivalent status at birth to the children born to them outside of the kingdom . . . . There was no warrant for supposing that the Framers wished to deal less generously with their own children.”

18.  1988 Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)

It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.” [881 and n.2].

“…. It has never been suggested that Congress has the power to deny natural born status to native borns. Here it might be helpful to distinguish between the power to define the clause (e.g., to say that “natural born” means “born in California”) and the power to naturalize from birth (to include additional classes of people within the scope of the clause). Congress has only the latter power under the Constitution. Thus Congress can expand the category of natural-born citizens to encompass more than simply native borns, but it may not contract the category below the native born minimum set by the Fourteenth Amendment.” [892, n. 65].

19. 1995 Walter Dellinger (AAG), Statement before the Subcommittees on Immigration and Claims and on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Dec. 13, 1995)

Note: Per Wikipedia (and sources cited therein), Dellinger served as the acting United States Solicitor General for the 1996-1997 Term of the Supreme Court under President Bill Clinton. Prior to his appointment – when he submitted this statement to Congress – Dellinger was an Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Court, [Wong Kim Ark] in a detailed review of the Anglo-American common law of citizenship and the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, established several propositions. First, because the Constitution does not define United States citizenship, it must be interpreted in light of the common law. Under the common law of England, which was adopted by the United States, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural-born subject, with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel.

20. 2005 Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005):

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”

“In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentors today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorproates both th3 common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.”

21. 2005 Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)

United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.”

Above are 21 instances where the reality of this universe and this planet, do not seem to agree with Mr. Donofrio’s alternate reality. Let give him one more to grow on, from Ankeny v. Governor in 2009, which may help explain to Mr. Donofrio and his disciples why this Reality did not go down his divergent two citizen-parent path:

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12


Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Pretty simple.  The case did not define natural born citizenship and, two citizen parents are not a requirement.  Duh!!!

For what it is worth, the 21 instances above could just as easily been 100 or more instances.  Donofrio’s alternate reality universe, where Minor v. Happersett supposedly defined natural born citizenship in 1875 as requiring two citizen parents,  badly needs a Vinny Gambini (from My Cousin Vinny) to ask the equivalent of, “Well, I guess the laws of physics cease to exist on top of your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans? Sooo:

Well, Mr. Donofrio, I guess the laws of physics and common sense cease to exist on top of your computer desk. Was this a magic case? Did you learn about it from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The WABAC Machine. Wiki says:

Sherman and Mr. Peabody enter the WABAC machine ca. 1960 to witness another time and place in history.

The WABAC Machine (pronounced, and often synonymous with, Way-back) refers to a fictional machine from the cartoon segment Peabody’s Improbable History, an ongoing feature of the 1960’s cartoon series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. The WABAC Machine is a plot device used to transport the characters Mr. Peabody and Sherman back in time. The meaning of the acronym is unknown, but mid-century, big-science project names, such as ENIAC, UNIVAC,  and JOHNNIAC, often ended in “AC”.

As in the original cartoon, the Wayback Machine is often invoked to suggest the audience follow the narrator back to the past. Frequently such visits to the past are trips of nostalgia, remembering times, places, or things of the not-so-distant past. One example of popular usage occurred in “Goofy Ball”, a 1995 episode of the TV show NewsRadio, when station owner Jimmy James (Stephen Root) says: “Dave, don’t mess with a man with a Wayback Machine. I can make it so you were never born.

The Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive was named after the WABAC.

Note 2. Source:  Items at Numbers 12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20, and 21 above may be found at:


Note 3. Source of google books cites above: All of the cites above which contain a google book cite came from this website, where you can easily read a 100 instances which contradict the Donofrio nonsense interpretation of Minor v. Happersett:


Note 4: Here are the seven simple sentences from Minor v. Happersett which cause so much confusion to the two citizen-parent Birthers:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.