Tag Archives: two citizen parents

Princess Miki Haz A Mad (Or, She Goes Some More A Raving)

Really Miffed, Princess Miki And An Unknown Birther Wait For The Road To Open Up

Well, Princess Miki “The Mad Hawaiian” Booth aka Miki Mouth, really haz a mad on for Karl Rove. Here is an excerpt from her latest rant about him not playing along with all the Birther lunacy(Thanks to Reader Mitchina for making me aware of this!!!) :

Karl Rove has been especially vindictive to we the people of the eligibility movement, calling us “birthers” and “fringe” or saying that we have “a problem with a black man in the White House.” He mimics the same talking points spewed at us by everyone who would like us to shut up and go away because to reveal the truth strikes at the heart of their agenda: complete governmental control, the Constitution be damned. After an especially nasty tirade against “birthers” and announcing that Obama was eligible to go on the 2012 ballot, I emailed Rove explaining the difference between “natural born Citizen” and “native born Citizen.” I didn’t go into the fact that Obama has not even proven his “native born” status since the only record he has produced is a proven forgery. I didn’t expect an answer, so you can imagine my astonishment when I received one.

Rove was short and to the point. “You’re wrong!” “Obama’s was born in the United States and his mother was an American citizen so he is eligible.

I responded:

Oct. 26, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Miki Booth wrote:

Born to Citizen parents (both parents) It matters less where the child is born as in the case of military parents ie John McCain. Article II, Section I, Claus 5 requirement that president and VP (devolved) be natural born Citizens. Founders wanted highest standard of citizenship for the highest office in the land, to ensure the president and VP would have allegiance only to the US. Let me clue you in, Mr. Rove, at the time of Obama’s birth his father was a British subject of the UK colony of Kenya. My husband and son were both born in Kapiolani hospital and it makes no difference if he was born there, his Certification of Live Birth   and the Certificate of Live Birth posted on April 27 are both forgeries. Miki Booth

On Oct. 26, at 4:07 PM, Karl Rove a href=”mailto:Karl@Rove.com”>Karl@Rove.com> wrote:

No US court has ever held a child born to a US mother on US soil to be anything other than a natural born citizen. Never. And no they aren’t.

Rove didn’t respond to my final email to him where I wrote:

Mr. Rove, you are thinking of native born citizen. Yet, again, you made a statement w/o facts to back it up. Name one court case defining natural born citizen and don’t rely on CRS propaganda.

Miki Booth

Sent from my iphone.

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673%3ATopic%3A959563&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

There is a lot more at the link, and it is a very fun read.  There is also a youtube video of Princess Miki and Mark Gillar discussing this, but about half way through it, darned if I didn’t fall asleep, and miss half of this week’s episode of White Collar to boot.  Sooo, I will write about that later if it warrants any attention.

What all this boils down to, is that Miki Mouth is mad because Karl Rove will not validate her insane belief system. The Birthers don’t do Reading Comprehension very well, and Wong Kim Ark and the Ankeny Decision are just plain over their heads. Plus, they are a bit raw in the hindquarters from getting kicked out of numerous court houses and landing on their butts, with a bill for the costs. That kinda smarts, if you know what I mean.

Karl Rove just ain’t giving Princess Miki, nor any other Birther, no respect. Rather than engage her in a prolonged discussion about the Imaginary Two Citizen Parent Theory, Rove has important things to do in the REAL world. This is what just chaps the Birthers’ asses. Yet, what else can they reasonably expect??? Every time someone does try to engage them, and explain the REAL law to them, they spin off into Legal LaLa Land with a bunch of Birther crap that doesn’t mean a thing to anybody who understands the law.

Anti-Birthers and Obots patiently explain the law to them. Judges explain the law to them. Congress hires people to write legal memorandums which fully explain the law to them. The law itself is readily available to them online, and they can read and study Wong Kim Ark for themselves. I have very nicely put both major cases here at The Birther Think Tank for them, above in the blog header. I even explain the facts of natural born citizenship to them.

Plus, people like Dr. Conspiracy, FogBow, and John Woodman, and others have set up blogs full of legal and factual information to help them through these first difficult days of military service. (Ooops, I got carried away.) The blogroll here is full of excellent resources by people who have done all the heavy lifting for the Birthers.  All they have to do is shut up long enough to read it.

And the Birthers ignore every piece of it, and keep on birfing out their ration of nonsense. So why should Karl Rove waste any of his time on them??? Frankly, Rove could set aside a full hour for Princess Miki and at the end of the hour she would still be trying to tell him he didn’t know what he was talking about, because her smarty-pants butt has done read a bunch of stupid Birther lawyers who haven’t been able to win one single case in four years.

No, Princess Miki, you don’t get no respect. And you don’t deserve any.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Dorothy Lamour and Jiggs, the chimpanzee, in the 1936 film, Jungle Princess. Wiki says:

The Jungle Princess is a 1936 motion picture released by Paramount Pictures, directed by William Thiele, and starringDorothy Lamour in her film debut, Ray Milland, and Ray Mala.

The film was a major hit and launched Lamour’s career as one of the leading stars of the era, often cast in similar sarong clad jungle adventure romances, which led to her playing leading lady to Bing Crosby and Bob Hope in the Road to… musical comedy movie series beginning four years later.

Note 2. She Goes Some More A Raving. This is a rave-Rove wordplay based on Lord Byron’s poem:

So We’ll Go No More a Roving
BY LORD BYRON (GEORGE GORDON)

So, we’ll go no more a roving
So late into the night,
Though the heart be still as loving,
And the moon be still as bright.

For the sword outwears its sheath,
And the soul wears out the breast,
And the heart must pause to breathe,
And love itself have rest.

Though the night was made for loving,
And the day returns too soon,
Yet we’ll go no more a roving
By the light of the moon.

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173101

Here is Joan Baez singing it:


Mario Apuzzo, Vampire Hunter???

Old Abe Lincoln Took An Axe And Gave The Vampire Forty Whacks

In 2010, author Seth Grahame-Smith released his novel, Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.  It was a ripping good yarn and was made into a movie by the same name a few months ago. Wiki provides the gist of the story:

When Lincoln is eleven years old, he learns from his father Thomas Lincoln that vampires are, in fact, real. Thomas explains to his son that a vampire killed Abraham’s grandfather (also named Abraham Lincoln) in 1786. Young Abraham is also shocked to learn that his beloved mother Nancy Hanks Lincoln succumbed not to milk sickness but rather to being given a “fool’s dose” of vampire blood, the result of Thomas’s failure to repay a debt. A year later he lures the vampire responsible for his mother’s death to the family farm and manages to kill it with a homemade stake.

At the age of sixteen Lincoln gets word of a possible vampire attack along the Ohio River and investigates, but this time he is no match for the vampire and is nearly killed. He is saved at the last moment by the intervention of the vampire Henry Sturges. Henry nurses Lincoln back to health and explains some of the nature of vampirism, emphasizing that some vampires are good and others are evil. Lincoln spends the summer with Henry and trains for combat, becoming a skilled wrestler and silver coated axe-handler. For several years following, Henry sends Lincoln the names and addresses of evil vampires; Abraham dutifully tracks them down and kills them.

As a young adult, Lincoln and a friend travel down the Mississippi River to New Orleans on a flatboat to sell a number of goods. Here Lincoln’s life is changed forever after he witnesses a slave auction. Lincoln follows a slave buyer and his new slaves back to their plantation and discovers to his horror that the buyer is a vampire – the slaves are to be used not for labor but for food. Lincoln writes in his journal his belief that vampires will continue to exist in America as long as they can easily buy their victims in this manner – to end slavery is to end the scourge of vampires. Lincoln becomes an Abolitionist. He marries Mary Todd, begins to raise a family, starts a law firm, and is elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

While in Washington, Lincoln meets his old friend Edgar Allan Poe, who also knows the truth about vampires. Poe tells Lincoln that the vampires are being chased out of their ancestral homes in Europe (in part because of a public outcry over the bloody atrocities of Elizabeth Báthory) and are flocking to America because of the slave trade. Poe warns that if the vampires are left unchecked they will eventually seek to enslave all Americans, white and black. Lincoln leaves Washington in 1849 and declines to seek re-election; Poe is found murdered that same year in Baltimore, the victim of a vampire attack.

In 1857 Henry summons Lincoln to New York City. Here Lincoln and fellow vampire slayer William Seward are told that the vampires in the South intend to start a civil war so that they can conquer the north and enslave all humans of America. Lincoln runs for the U.S. Senate and debates Stephen A. Douglas in what became known as the Lincoln–Douglas debates. Although Lincoln loses to Douglas (an ally of the Southern vampires), he gains a great deal of publicity and respect, which allows him to capture the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States and then the office itself.

The secret behind creating these kinds of fictional works is the careful interweaving of real facts and real events into the story. For example, Lincoln really did win a seat in Congress in 1846, and he did decline re-election. He was handy with an axe. His mother did die in 1818. Poe died in 1849 and the circumstances of his death were shrouded in mystery. Lincoln did become an Abolitionist, etc.

In fact, for a story such as this to get to the level where one can suspend the disbelief  long enough to read the book or watch the movie, it must incorporate some patina of reality into the underlying framework of the fiction. Or, you end up with Plan 9 From Outer Space.

The same is true of the Birther movement.  Some are more skilled at this art than others.  For example, the Birthers who filed the Ankeny action in Indiana in 2009, simply left out all mention of the 1898 Scotus case, Wong Kim Ark.  Not surprisingly, that Court noticed this rather glaring omission. After explaining Wong Kim Ark (WKA) to the plaintiffs, at some length, they concluded:

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [WKA] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Squeeky’s Law Dictionary defines conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions as:

Factual or legal material that a party has pulled out of their a$$ in the vain hope of influencing the tribunal.

But, where these Birthers were sloppy, and gave rise to the Ankeny precedent which is now found persuasive across the country, other Birthers work harder and incorporate the WKA case and other little tidbits of reality into their fictional dream narratives. Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. provides an excellent brief example, from just the other day:

A “natural born Citizen” is implicitly defined by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 and explicitly defined by The Venus (C.J. Marshall concurring), Inglis, Shanks, Dred Scott (J.Daniels concurring), and Minor. Minor explained that under “common-law” which which the Framers were familiar when they adopted the Constitution, Virginia Minor was a “citizen,” who belonged to the “natural born Citizen” class. Minor and these sources which preceded it all relied upon the law of nations, as explained by Vattel in The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) and treated as American “common-law” and national law, to conclude that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.

This original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is the supreme law of the land as is the other two presidential eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., age of at least 35 years and residency of at least 14 years. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed that American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did was provide a definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth, by looking to the colonial English common law as an aid in construing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which is not the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark defined a “citizen of the United States” which is a different class of “citizen” from the “natural born Citizen” class. Hence, your reliance on Wong Kim Ark to support your theory that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English defined a “natural born subject” under the English common law is misplaced. Rather, today the definition of a “natural born Citizen” continues to be a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of the country at the time of the child’s birth.

Here is the link, and this was the second comment on the page:

Comments Mario Apuzzo’s Blog

Rather than go to one of his briefs and pull out a much longer excerpt, I am just picking on this short example. Apuzzo is engaged in a comment exchange with someone named “Linda,” who is whacking him around like a goat carcass on a Buzkashi field.

Anyway, look at how sneakingly Apuzzo slips in HIS characterization of WKA:

What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did was provide a definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth, by looking to the colonial English common law as an aid in construing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which is not the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

There is some truth in that statement. The real question in WKA was not whether poor Wong was born in the United States,  but whether or not he was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as set out in the 14th Amendment. BUT, the WKA Court started it’s analysis with an in depth discussion of natural born citizenship as found in Article II of the Constitution.  That is the same place Apuzzo starts. In fact, two of the seven sections in the case dealt exclusively with the concept of natural born citizenship starting in England, and then continuing to the United States.

Apuzzo wants to separate “Article II natural born citizenship” from 14th Amendment’s “citizen of the United States” at birth. He wants to pretend that they are two distinct concepts. That way he can weave WKA into his fictional framework, and make his case more believable, all while ignoring the painful reality.  The painful reality is that  the WKA Court specifically says the two phrases are talking about the same underlying concept.  Which is, that the 14th Amendment affirms the concept of natural born citizenship for those born inside the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, as long as they are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers.  From WKA Section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

So yes, WKA construed the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction,” but WKA also found that concept to be the same thing as the requirement for natural born citizenship.

Article II natural born citizenship = birth within the dominion + subject to the jurisdiction

14th Amendment citizens at birth  = birth within the dominion + subject to the jurisdiction

And, the WKA Court explicitly states this:

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 or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. 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;”

This is not the only piece of reality that Apuzzo carves up and uses snippets from to weave into his creation. Natural born citizens truly are defined by various  naturalization statutes. The problem is, naturalization statutes have nothing to do with persons born INSIDE the United States. Those statutes only apply to the foreign born. From Section IV of WKA:

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

Darn, that is strange. I wonder how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. could have read WKA and not seen that part??? He is a lawyer, after all.  Similarly, there really was a case called, Minor v. Happersett  (1875),  but that case doesn’t run off to Emerich de Vattel of Switzerland for its definition of natural born citizenship any more that Lincoln sought out Edgar Allan Poe for advice on Vampires. Here is what the Minor Court says about the term, and where it went to get its definition:

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.

And that is usually where the Birthers leave off the cite, and somehow forget to provide the rest of the Court’s thoughts on the subject of who was a natural born citizen:

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

Those doubts were solved 23 years later in WKA.  Apuzzo adds some more pizzazz to his tale with this:

This original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is the supreme law of the land as is the other two presidential eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., age of at least 35 years and residency of at least 14 years. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed that American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Yes, we have a constitution, and yes it is the supreme law of the land. But that document does not define natural born citizen. As both the Minor Court and the WKA Court stated, you have to go to English common law for the definition. And Emerich de Vattel’s writings ain’t common law. And his book called The Law of Nations is NOT part of the U.S. Constitution.

But that is how the Birthers roll. Little pieces of reality mixed in here and there with big chunks of fiction. The problem is, they keep trying to pass this crap off as a documentary, when it is more like a cheesy science fiction B movie called “Emerich de Vattel, Alien Hunter.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image Easter Egg. This is a word play on Stanley Kowalski’s utterances in A Streetcar Named Desire.  The Image is a photoshopped job of Abe Lincoln chasing Edward Cullen from the Twilight vampire series. His girlfriend is named Bella Swan.


Natural Born Encounters Of The Third Kind!!!

True, He Was A Little Rough Around The Edges, But He Had A Groovy Set Of Wheels

After my recent discussions with Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. (see notes below),  it looks like there must be THREE KINDS of natural born citizens. Once, there were but two:

1. Natural born citizens born inside the United States;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress.

If we assume for a moment that Apuzzo is right, and that natural born citizens born inside the United States must be born to two citizen parents, then what in the world do we do with the Third Kind of natural born citizen??? The kind described in the Wong Kim Ark (1898) (WKA) decision.

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 [1898], aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, [] [and] 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, the kind described  in this case, cited with approval in WKA:

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, let’s see, Rhodes says:

All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens;

And the Supreme Court says the same thing, and defines “allegiance” to boot:

1. aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance of the English Sovereign, [unless within the two exceptions.]

2. 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.,

Well, that means that children born here of aliens, who are not foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, are within the allegiance and thus natural born citizens. That sounds right to me. I wonder if the WKA Court ever said any of this again??? Yep. Lookee! Here’s a big one,  from Section V:

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 or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

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;

Wow! it looks like the WKA Court is even tying the 14th Amendment into this whole thing, but let’s ignore that for a moment. The Court clearly calls these children born here of aliens, natural born. And, the WKA Court is very comfortable equating natural born subject and natural born citizen, because in section III, they cited this case with approval:

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

Well, lets substitute the terms subject and citizen, and see what we get:

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 citizen, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born citizen;

All of the above analysis is unnecessary for most of us, because any honest and intelligent reading of Wong Kim Ark readily leads to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment simply affirmed the Article II common law notion of natural born citizenship and put it safely into the U.S. Constitution.

The reason I am going through all this to show that even to Birthers, there was definitely some kind of creature discussed in WKA called a natural born citizen who did NOT have two citizen parents. This creature, this WKA natural born citizen, could even have two alien parents, as long as he was born inside the country. Birther cryto-zoologists should be high-fiving each other and rushing off to the woods with camera traps. This is the equivalent of finding Big Foot!

Non-Birthers already knew about this, and it is no surprise to us. In fact, we tend to notice a suspicious lack of the phase “two citizen parents” running through the case at all. But why haven’t the Birthers ever admitted that there is some species of Natural Born Citizen in WKA that doesn’t match up to their Imaginary Law requiring two citizen parents??? The common law creature is certainly discussed and talked about. My goodness,  Sections II and III of the decision are all about him, and he surfaces periodically throughout the rest of the decision.

Hmmm, let’s redo our list and see what the reason might be:

1. The Birther natural born citizens born inside the United States, to two citizen parents, based on French law, and checked-out library books;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress; and

3.  The WKA natural born citizens born inside the United States, to parents who are neither foreign diplomats, nor invading soldiers, based on English common law, American common law, and a long line of legal cases.

Yes, comparing No. 1 to No. 3, I can see why the Birthers treat the WKA natural born citizen like a red headed stepchild at a family reunion. That whole French law-library book foundation seems a tad shaky. Is it safe??? Here, let me touch it with my mouse. . .click. . .

The Law Offices Of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Shortly Before The Vattel Cornerstone Crumbled

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I do not know which movie this is from. I saved this picture in the past without a link.  I searched images of old science fiction movies without success. If anybody knows, please tell me.

Note 2. The Squeeky – Mario Discussions link:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/the-squeeky-mario-discussions/

Note 3. Ignore This Note! I am just giving myself a place to link a silly picture:

 


The “Two Citizen Parents” Requirement??? Oh Yeah, The Birthers Built That!!!

Aha! The Birthers Were Privy To Secret Information After All!

Well, I am not above ripping off the “You Didn’t Build That-Yes I Did Too Build That” partisan squabble theme.  Sooo, lets look at the Imaginary Law that the Birthers built, all by themselves.  Now we could do this by reading Wong Kim Ark (1998) and then Ankeny (2009) and so forth and so on, and prove the Birthers entire theory is not based in REAL law, and thus by that process infer that their theory is totally manufactured.

But it would be far more fun to take the Birthers’ own thought processes and examine how they go astray from their end. Thankfully, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.  is on retainer with the Birther Dreamwerks, so we won’t have to look far. Plus,  he is an Article II Constitutional specialist on this stuff, in much the same way as Lem Putt is a specialist in his chosen field. (see Note 2, below).

Here is what I found at Apuzzo’s blog, and with this one six-sentence  paragraph we can see where the Birthers derive their weird beliefs and why judges equip their bailiffs with butterfly nets whenever the Birthers come to visit:

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

Here is a link, in case you want to read the whole thing:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/08/barack-obama-ballot-challenge.html

Now, let’s examine this sentence by sentence to see how Apuzzo ending up constructing the ramshackle hovel of his theory.

Sentence 1: The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Well, this is true. No problem so far.

Sentence 2: It [14th Amendment] does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”

Whoops! @#%!!&**#. Mario just whacked the crap out  his thumb with the hammer. Apuzzo is making a conclusion here. This was a FALSE assumption on his part. Because when you refer to the SCOTUS case, Wong Kim Ark (1898), section V., you find this:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

From sections II and III of the Wong Kim Ark decision, we know that “fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion” was also known as NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP:

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.

Further down in section III, we find this put even more succinctly:

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 Mario Apuzzo Esq. is simply, and badly, wrong. By the clear holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court, the 14th Amendment DID INDEED give those born within the country, and not subject to the two exceptions, “the status of a “natural born Citizen.” This fundamental mistake is where the Birthers first start to go off course.

Sentence 3: When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.

This is true. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1868.

Sentence 4: Hence, they surely did not write the clause [natural born citizen] into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also true, because the Constitution came first by about 80 years.  But, that does not mean that the opposite is also true.  In fact, it is very possible for the 14th Amendment coming 80 years later to  “have in mind a citizenship standard that is contained in the Constitution.”  Repeating again the introduction to section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

Did you get that Mario??? Both the 14th Amendment, and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866, affirmed the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion. This was the common law on natural born citizenship. For, as is stated further down in Section V, and cited with approval:

In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.

2 Whart.Int.Dig. p. 394.

and here is more from section V, which proves the 14th Amendment was declaratory of pre-existing law, that is – the common law relating to natural born citizenship, [cites omitted]:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

And what was that common law they were referring to? One more time for the slow:

[E]very 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.

So no, Article II of the Constitution did not contemplate the 14th Amendment, but the 14th Amendment sure contemplated the Article II common law on natural born citizenship.

Sentence 5: And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Very true. The 14th Amendment did NOT repeal or amend the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. That is because the 14th Amendment actually AFFIRMED the Article II natural born Citizen. From the bottom of section V of Wong Kim Ark:

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 or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory. . .

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. . .

Sentence 6: Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

No they don’t. For persons born within the United States, they are the same thing. Which is what court after court keeps telling the Birthers. Those courts either cite the same things from Wong Kim Ark, that I have, or they simply cite the reasoning in the Ankeny decision, which in turn is based on WKA, as persuasive.

You see, the courts aren’t looking to play devious little word games which back up their personal desires. They are just courts, and judges, who read the law and try in an honest fashion to figure out what it means. In their simple and naive fashion,  the judges and courts think that:

1. The common law concept that persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

and:

2. The 14th Amendment provision bestowing citizenship on persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

are:

3. Talking about the same group of people – native born citizens, or citizens at birth, or natural born citizens.

They think this because the same requirements are met by both groups, to wit:. . . born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers. In fact, for this NOT to be true, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. would have to amend his 5th sentence above to read the reverse of what it does:

The Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Because if 14th Amendment didn’t repeal or amend the previous common law, then those  born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers are the same people, no matter which law you use. In effect, Apuzzo’s own assumptions and reasoning destroys his own argument.

This has been a step by step analysis of how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ended up in legal La La Land.  This is how he ends up believing Emerich de Vattel sets the standard for natural born citizenship. This is how Apuzzo latches on the the two citizen parents stuff, because that notion is nowhere to be found in the 14th Amendment. It isn’t found in the Constitution either, but since the term isn’t defined there, it is easier to play games with. But first, Apuzzo has to get rid of the pesky 14th Amendment or his other tenets  can go nowhere.

But, as you can see above,  Apuzzo went astray in his reasoning early on. And it is obvious to the non-Birther community. This is why the Birther mantra, “there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen” keeps getting bounced out of courtrooms across the nation.  This is why the Apuzzites are getting assessed court costs, and  having their arguments called frivolous, and without merit.

Apuzzo can not even maintain internal consistency in his own argument. Sooo, with the image above in mind, people should be careful about entering his sanctuary. You might fall in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I found this image (An outhouse at Goat Peak, 6,305 ft (1,922 m) above sea level) at Wiki, which has many interesting things to say about Outhouses:

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

Note 2. Lem Putt, The Specialist.  My father had a copy of this book.  Here is a online link to the short 1929 book:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/specialist.html

Note 3.  Privy. For ESL’s, this word has two meanings:

1. outhouse: a small outbuilding with a bench having holes through which a user can defecate

2. privy(p): (followed by `to’) informed about something secret or not generally known; “privy to the details of the conspiracy”

Reader hklrnaa47 has provided this additional information about the etymology of these two definitions in the comments below. I am updating this note to add this. Thank You hklrnaa47!!!

Hi Squeeks. Your 2 part definition of the word ‘privy’ doesn’t actually explain how the same word gained those 2 definitions.

In fact ‘privy’ is a very old word having to do with toilet and the location of emptying ones bowels. Once upon a time, Kings, being special people and all, were provided with special servants, called ‘Privy Counselors’ whose job it was, quite literally, to wipe the Kings ass.

As you can imagine, someone entrusted with this rather intimate access to the Kings person had to be completely trustworthy and dependable. They would grow, over time, to do more than just help with the Kings movements, they would be entrusted with secrets of all kinds.

Thus definition number two.

For the Image Easter Egg. Another word play. Going over the edge is an idiom which means to go crazy. However, the word “going” or “go” (which also means to use the restroom) combined with a privy perched on the edge of a cliff,  and presumably emptying  out over said edge, means something else entirely.


One Nice Thing About Sheriff Joe Arpaio

From The Way The Hay Was Loaded, His Experts Assured Him There Was Definitely A Needle In There Somewhere

Well, it occurred to me that I am always saying bad things about the Birthers, poking fun at them, and hurting their feelings. If I am not careful I will probably become cynical and mean over time. Sooo, I figure every once in a while I ought to say something nice about the Birthers just to keep in practice. This is not going to be easy, but here I go.

ONE NICE THING about Sheriff Joe Arpaio is that he is NOT one of those stupid, idiotic, delusional, brain-dead, lying, quack-lawyer, dumb a$$, two citizen parents Birthers who goes around spouting off that God Awful silly drivel about Emerich de Vattel and citing ridiculous pre-Wong Kim Ark cases while pretending that Minor v. Happersett is precedent and ignoring all the current case law, and insulting my intelligence in the process, like some kind of moronic, mindless, lobotomized DORK!!!

Whew. I feel better already. I need to do this more often. It is good for the soul.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Fifty Shades Of Stupid!!! (Or, Spanking Another Freeper Birther)

By The 89th Shade, They Were Really Having To Strain For Material

OMG!!! I stumbled across this little bit of SHEER TOTAL STUPIDITY while browsing the Free Republic Birther threads. There is sooo much Birther idiocy there that I could churn out 10 Internet Articles per day easily just by pointing out their legal mistakes, absurdities, and logical fallacies. It would be the equivalent of shooting very stupid fish in a very tiny barrel. Sooo, usually I just giggle and move on to something else. But this piece of nuttiness by Freeper Diogeneslamp was just too dumb to pass up.

Down below in the notes you can find links, and a screen capture of the idiocy.  Now, on with the story. The Freeper Birthers are all babbling and drooling and stuff, and Freeper Diogeneslamp pops out his little copy of John Adam’s personal Law book of English Common law, published in 1736. Which says:

All those are natural born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.

and to the side of that the margin note says:

In Calvins Case those which were born in Normandy, Gascon, while under actual Obedience to the Kings of England, were Subjects born. And this by the Statute is declared to have been the Common Law; but those born there now are Aliens, those places not being in the actual Possession of our King.

Now, I debated Diogeneslamp on numerous occasisons before the Freeper Birthers got tired of me kicking their butts and got me banned. He knows about Wong Kim Ark, and argues mightily that it doesn’t provide precedent on natural born citizenship passing to those born inside the United States regardless of the citizenship of the parents. And he knows, from that same case, that natural born citizenship passes to those born outside the country to American parent(s) by statutory law.

In short, Diogeneslamp is fully aware of this excerpt from Wong Kim Ark via the Ankeny Court:

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

Lookie!!! The Courts say the same thing as the book. “Within the Obedience” doesn’t mean “citizen.”  It means within the physical jurisdiction of the King.  Clearly, it is the place of birth which controls natural born citizenship for those born inside the country. But, to actually read from John Adams’ book and recognize that fact means you have to quit being a two citizen-parent Birther. Because you to have to face the fact that the citizenship of the parents has NOTHING to do with those born INSIDE the country. Criminy, if the country’s possession reverts, there goes the citizenship, parents notwithstanding. What, does your parentage change if the country changes hands??? This is not just my opinion.

Here it is again, in Ankeny, citing Wong Kim Ark:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the OBEDIENCE, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and 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.

Diogeneslamp has been exposed to all this before. Numerous times. There is no excuse for him not recognizing it.  So, how does he handle this clear conflict between his own evidence and his own beliefs??? Simple. He ignores it and tries to pass it off as the same as Vattel’s definition. Like this:

A. English Common law says if you are born here, you’re NBC, and your PARENTS’ citizenship is irrelevant.

and

B. Vattel says NBC only occurs when both PARENTS are citizens.

equals

C. They must be the same thing as what Vattel says, because they both mention the word PARENTS.

I don’t think stupid is too harsh a word  to use. Here it is in his own words:

Hmm… It mentions that a person’s Parents must be in Actual Obedience to the King, and it mentions this BEFORE it says anything about where such a subject should be born, establishing the first requirement as the more important of the two, in my opinion.

Wow. This definition of “Natural-born Subject” sounds very much like the Vattel definition of “natural born citizen”! The first thing both definitions mention is “parents.” Loyal Parents. If “parents” aren’t important, why would they be mentioned? This law book was also subsequently owned by John Adam’s son, John Quincy Adams. (Who also became President.)

But, being the legal whiz that he is, Diogeneslamp must realize that the link to Vattel is a little weak. Sooo, how are we supposed to know that John Adams ascribes to the Vattel definition???  Simple. Because Adams stayed with Vattel’s published in France during the Revolutionary War.

Sooo, that is pretty stupid. Ignoring the Wong Kim Ark and the Ankeny Court saying the same thing as is found in John Adams’ book is pretty stupid. Trying to cobble Vattel onto the book in spite of the clearly opposite meaning is pretty stupid. Ignoring your own evidence is pretty stupid. Trying to convince us that Adam’s staying with the publisher is proof of anything is pretty stupid. But you know what is the stupidest thing of all that Diogeneslamp does???

He forgets to check the publishing date of Adams’ personal book on English Common Law – – – which proves to be 1736, or 22 years BEFORE the first publication of Vattel’s Law Of Nations in 1758.  Yes, Diogeneslamp believes, and expects us to believe, that Adams’ book is parroting a definition of citizenship that won’t be written for another 22 years. I could go on.

If somebody made a career of studying Diogeneslamp’s stupidity, I am pretty sure they would need a title like 1000 Shades of Stupid.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Screen Capture: Here is a screen capture of Diogeneslamp’s dribble. You can click on it to make it larger:

Note 2: Here is a link to it. Just scroll down to comment #224:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2913011/posts?q=1&;page=201;;comment=224

Note 3. Here’s a link to the 1736 book:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newabridgementof01baco#page/n5/mode/1up

Note 4. the Free Republic ban. Here is a link, with photos, of when the Free Republic Birthers wussied out and ran in panic stricken terror from me:

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

Note 5: The Image.  This is a 1947 photo of Salvador Dali using a model as a desk.   Photograph by Bob Sandberg, Museum of the City of New York, The LOOK Collection.”  It is rumored that IKEA is working on reproductions.


Karl Denninger Lowers The Birther Cone Of Silence!!! (Or, Squeeky Gets DQ’ed???)

The Birthers Decided It Would Be Cheaper To Mass Produce Echo Chambers

Well, what a sad day. I got “DQ’ed” at Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker Forum for laying a little truth on them. This is sad because that is one of the four or five websites I make it a point to visit daily. Anyway, Karl Denninger, who I respect very much for his common sense financial analysis, got to hanging around with liars and charlatans like Special Deputy Jerome “Jerry” Corsi, and ended up drinking the idiotic Birther two citizen parents kool-aid.

Here are a few excerpts from the Market Ticker Internet Article:

Here are the facts:

Deconstructing Marco Rubio: INELIGIBLE

Rubio was born to two parents who were not citizens at the time of his birth. They were here in the country and he was born here, but his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.

At a later date his parents became citizens of the United States.

Marco Rubio is ineligible to be President of the United States under the natural born citizen requirement. He is a citizen but will never be a natural born citizen as he was not at birth due to the Cuban citizenship of his parents and you cannot retroactively acquire natural born citizenship status.

He therefore must not be nominated as VP, since the primary qualification for that office is the ability to stand as President if something happens to the President while he is in office.

I know there are people who think the Constitution shouldn’t read this way on natural born citizenship as a requirement for this office, but it does read this way AND IS WHAT IT IS.

Here is a link to the complete article:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=205117

Sooo,  to correct this blatant nonsense, I made the following comment, which is on page 3 of the comments:

The “two-citizen parent” requirement is Imaginary Law. The issue was decided in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case. This case was cited extensively in a 2009 Indiana case, Ankeny v. Governor, to wit:

The Birthers argued:

“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

To which the Indiana court said:

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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

That is The REAL Law, as opposed to the Birther’s IMAGINARY Law. As far as Mino[r] v. Happersett being “precedent” as to defining natural born citizenship, the very idea is laughable to anyone who can read and comprehend simple sentences written in English. Court after court rejects the notion, and if you want one recent example, then simply refer to the recent Tisdale case from Virginia:

The Federal Judge slapped the suit down holding:

The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding … and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

That is one of at least 4 or 5 cases this year alone which chunked the two citizen parent nonsense out the door.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Which, got me DQ’ed, whatever that is, which means I can’t post there anymore. I find this disturbing. Not only has Denninger drunk deeply and long from the Well of Two Citizen Parents Stupidity, but he has apparently picked up another nasty little Birther habit . . . banning people who tell him he is wrong. This is probably a smart, though not courageous, move on his part, because when the law isn’t on your side, then it is a little inconvenient to have somebody citing it to you. Which ought to tell him something.

And BTW (which means by the way) should Karl Denninger or any other Birther wish to make comments here, I don’t DQ or ban people who disagree with me. Which also ought to tell him something. Like I ain’t scairt to defend my position.

Another disturbing thing is how he is ruining his credibility on financial matters with this Birther fling.  He is one of the few people who has a really good grasp on the macro-economic situation and should he become more well known, there are people who are going to look at his Birtherism and dismiss him like he was a Moon Landing Denier. Not only does he have an Achille’s Heel, he has managed to insert it into his own mouth.

I will discuss his article in more depth at a later date.  Meanwhile,  I guess nobody is perfect, and this is probably God’s way of instilling a little humility in Denninger who I believe will one day pull his head out of his rear end on this. I sense at heart that he is a very honest person, and when he finally figures out how he has been completely hoodwinked on this stuff, first will come sad, and then will come mad. . .

And then I wouldn’t want to be Jerry Corsi taking scuba lessons from him.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


The Mummy Was An American!!! (The Egyptian Birthers Strike!!!)

Princess Ankhesenamón Always Conked Right Out When Imhotep Read From Apuzzo's Brief

Oh no!!! Now Birtherism has spread to the land of the Pharoahs. Here’s the story:

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt’s election commission confirmed Thursday that the mother of a popular Islamist presidential hopeful was an American citizen, effectively disqualifying him from the race and likely boosting the chances of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate.

The ruling is likely to draw an uproar from supporters of Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, a 50-year-old lawyer turned preacher who in recent months vaulted to become one of the strongest contenders for president, with widespread backing from ultra-conservative Muslims known as Salafis.

The announcement is particularly embarrassing for Abu Ismail, who used anti-US rhetoric in his campaign speeches and rejected “dependency” on the America. In recent weeks, he repeatedly denied the reports that began circulating that his late mother held US citizenship.

A law put in place after last year’s fall of President Hosni Mubarak stipulates that a candidate may not have any other citizenship than Egyptian — and that the candidate’s spouse and parents cannot have other citizenships as well.

The rest of this interesting story can be found here:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/egyptian-presidential-candidate-effectively-disqualified-over-mothers-us-citizenship/

However, there is one big difference.  The Egyptian Birthers have a REAL LAW about requiring two citizen parents, not an Imaginary Law, which they can cite.  Thank goodness, because I would hate to see the American Birthers go over there to help out, and start lying and misrepresenting like they do here in this country.

I think the Muslim Egyptians take that kind of stuff a lot more seriously than we do.  Who knows but the American Birthers could wind up in Egyptian prisons, or becomes slaves and have to help build another pyramid or something??? On the other hand, maybe that would be a good thing. For us.

But it ought to be interesting to see if the American Birthers start throwing Egyptian law at us. I feel pretty sure Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. will find a way to work it into his new New Jersey Birther lawsuit. And probably his brief, with a “Since the Dawn of Civilization and The Building of The Pyramids the law has required two citizen parents.. . .” segue.

And another American court will have to remind him which country he lives in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a photo of Zita Johann and Boris Karloff from the film, The Mummy (1932).

Note 2. Yes I thought about this:

Mummy Was An American, Papa Was A'Rolling Stone

This Image is “Building The Pyramids” by Peter Jackson, and may be found here:

http://www.illustrationartgallery.com/acatalog/info_JacksonEgypt.html

Note 3. Conked Out. From the caption, means:

1. To stop functioning; fail: The engine conked out on the final lap.
2. To fall asleep, especially suddenly or heavily: She conked out on the couch watching television.
3. To pass out; faint.
4. To die.


Did The Cold Case Posse Dry Gulch The “Two Citizen-Parents” Birthers???

Accused Of  Shooting Hopalong Happersett In The Back, The Two Lawyers  Swore They Had Done Nothing!!!

One of the mysteries about Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse (CCP), is who the posse members are. We know about Deputy Mike Zullo, part-time author, because he conducted the original press conference on March 1, 2012. And, from his prestigious reputation as an author. Or, more accurately, co-author along with Acting Deputy Jerome “Jerry” Corsi, who has a part-time job with World Net Daily:

http://www.amazon.com/Question-Eligibility-Enforcement-Investigation-ebook/dp/B007FWO19W

What little bit we do know about the CCP is that it was composed of 2 lawyers and 3 private investigators. See the transcript of the news conference at lines 82-85, where Deputy Zullo says:

82    We put together a group of five individuals: three former
83    police officers, all with criminal investigative experiences from other agencies, as
84    well as being trained by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office General Investigation
85    Division. We also brought in two attorneys so we could get some solid legal input.

Sheriff Arpaio News Conference Transcript

One of the attorneys is apparently Denise O’Rourke, Esq., who graduated cum laude from Whittier Law School in 1992.  We do not know who the other lawyer was.  Nor do we know whether or not the CCP took a vote from its members before releasing its findings, and whether or not there were any dissents. But these lawyers must have actually done part of their job properly and professionally, because the CCP has not said a word about the silly two citizen-parents Birther theory.

My assumption is that the two lawyers told them that theory was a bunch of hogwash and not to go there.  Because if they hadn’t, alleging that Obama wasn’t eligible for the office in the first place would have been some nice icing on the cake for Arpaio, Corsi, and the rest of the CCP.  An endorsement of the theory would not have been essential since the CCP is going down the birth certificate road, but they could have given a shout out to the Apuzzo-Donofrio-Kerchner type Birthers.

Ignoring the Vattel nonsense could just be the result of doing the right thing, or it could be that the two citizen-parents theory is so blatantly idiotic that the two lawyers were too embarrassed to throw out that particular mud-ball.  But what is really strange, is the deafening silence from the Minor v. Happersett Birther ideologues. You would think that they would be all over the CCP for not confirming their particular brand of  foolishness.

Maybe they are too caught up in the dizzying swirl of Forgerygate  to notice that they have been dry gulched, and left for the buzzards, in the Great Arroyo of Absurd Beliefs. But I predict they will soon awaken.

Enjoy the peace and quiet while you can.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the oater,  Outlaw Trail  (1944), starring Hoot Gibson.

Note 2. Dry-Gulch.

dry-gulch   [drahy-guhlch]

verb (used with object) Informal

1. to ambush with the intent of killing or severely mauling: The riders were dry-gulched by bandits.

2.to betray by a sudden change of attitude or allegiance: The party dry-gulched its chief candidate at the convention.

For an actual act of dry gulching which was related to a Court, and a judge, and legal differences, see this:


Rudy Tutor Ricochets – Hits Himself!!!

(Click on Image to make it larger.)

(Click on Image to make larger.)

(Click on Image to make larger.)

CDR Kerchner has a new Internet Article up where we get to watch and listen to Rudy Davis , aka lonestar1776, tutor us on the meaning of natural born citizenship. Here is the link to Kerchner’s blog:

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/natural-born-means-both-parents-must-be-us-citizens-george-washingtons-overdue-libary-book-by-rudy-davis-youtube-com/

Some of you may recognize Rudy as World Net Daily’s Number 1 Fan, from a previous article here where Rudy volunteered to execute Obama, should he ever be arrested, tried, and found guilty of whatever.  Rudy may have just been over-excited by the news that day, what with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse having reported that the online image of Obama’s long form birth certificate was a forgery. Oh, and the circular postal dating stamp was missing a few digits. Them’s purty serious crimes in these here United States!

Now, here is Rudy’s youtube lecture.

Rudy reads from a number of textbooks. His first mistake is to ASSUME that natural born citizen means two citizen parents because Article 2, Section 1 Clause 5 uses two different terms – natural born citizen and citizen at the time of the founding. Then, every time he encounters the words natural born citizen it’s “AHA!!! – See I told you so!!! It takes two citizen parents!!!

We get to go through several textbooks and then at the 6:00 minute mark, we get the first ricochet. The textbook says children born abroad of citizen parents might be natural born.  This distinction escapes our Rudy. Obama was born INSIDE the country.

At around the 8:00 – 8:30 minute mark Rudy plugs himself again, with another jus sanguinis example for children born abroad. Rudy goes on to say Obama isn’t natural born because his father was Kenyan. BUT Rudy, Obama was NOT born abroad.   Apparently, our boy has a high tolerance for pain, because around the 11:05 minute mark, Rudy pops another cap into himself, this one right in the old ticker.

This time, the textbook is in error because it says the President must be U.S. born, not natural born in the way Rudy thinks the term means. Yes. Rudy actually reads the words U.S. BORN and figures out the book  must be wrong, because it sure can’t be him. But he does try to cover this little bo-bo by telling us about how George Washington checked out Vattel’s Law of Nations, and it is now several hundred years overdue.

Call me soft-hearted, but I don’t get as mad at somebody like Rudy being flat out wrong, as I do at the Jerome Corsi, Joseph FarahMario Apuzzo, CDR Kerchner, and Leo Donofrio type Birthers. While those people have gone to college, and have the benefits of higher education, I suspect poor old Rudy has got his education behind the wheel of a tractor and loading bales of hay in the hot sun.  Heck, he is out buying civics and history textbooks at the thrift store to try to understand this stuff.

Curses to all the no-good lousy educated bastards who have lead him on and lied to him!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Images are from the March 1952 issue of  Life Magazine, Rooty Toot Toot, a re-telling of the Frankie and Johnny story. The art is very retro and the whole story may be found here:

http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=301

Luckily, youtube has the original animated short, from 1951: