Tag Archives: Rubio

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

jacobson 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it can’t be ignored anymore.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

There is more here:


Joseph Farah Goes “Over The Edge”

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

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

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

“Rubio’s not eligible,” Farah said.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Here is a link to Shapiro’s Internet Article:


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

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

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

Farah candidly states that:

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

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

Obama is not eligible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some believed political expediency trumped the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

Idioms & Phrases

over the edge

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

Note 2. Lemmings:  Wiki says:

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

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

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