"God’s Birther: The Fractal Failures of Carl Gallups"-Conclusion

By Frank Arduini

How an obscure southern preacher became a hero to “Birthers,” a laughing stock to “Obots,” and the single worst Baptist prognosticator of the future since William Miller.


Jesus Christ's Second ComingThe Great Disappointment

I do not know Carl Gallups. I have never met him. I am aware of him exclusively through the carefully crafted persona he presents on his Freedom Friday broadcasts and special reports via his PPSIMMONS website. For all I truly know, the real Carl Gallups is a perfectly nice guy who strives to be an exemplar of the traditional Christian virtues. But that Gallups never seems to show up for Freedom Friday. Instead we get a smug and insufferable caricature; mean spirited and spiteful; a southern fried hybrid of Phil Donahue and Marjoe Gortner. But it really does not matter which is the real Gallups. What matters is that he is so consistently, comprehensively and unapologetically wrong.

What can account for such exceptional and unfortunate reliability? After a review like this one, it bubbles up as a compelling question. It is axiomatic that even blind squirrels find nuts and even stopped clocks are right twice a day. How is it that Gallups should be the exception that proves those rules?

One common opinion that has been expressed by Obots and disgruntled Birthers alike is that Gallups and Zullo together have simply been engaged in a scam. It is a suggestion certainly worthy of consideration. “Send money” had been one of the most consistent components of their message since the earliest moments of their collaboration, and recently Mike Shoesmith has been compelled to explicitly deny that accusation. But even before the first Cold Case Posse press conference, Zullo was cashing in via an eBook published for sale on Amazon. His excuse for immediately getting his hands caught in that particular cookie jar was that the media had refused to cover the press conference, and so an alternative way to get the story out was required. This is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the eBook was actually already on sale before the first press conference had even taken place.

Cormac Herley, a computer security expert at Microsoft Research, wrote a paper in 2012 explaining why the Nigerian Email Scams are so pathetically obvious to the average person. Using an approach called “signal theory” he mathematically analyzed the con but with an important new insight. He decided to look at the con from the perspective of the scammers rather than that of the victims. He realized that it cost them next to nothing to spam the world. But to make real money, they needed to be able to efficiently tell the difference between the “true positives” (those who would get sucked in deeply enough to send a significant amount of money) and the “false positives” (targets who might seem like suckers at first, but who later got suspicious and bailed out early before they paid off). “False positives” were expensive. They wasted time and resources that could have been more profitably spent on the “true positives.”

In short, the Nigerian Email Scams are deliberately stupid specifically to filter out even those with only the tiniest bit of common sense, and to insure that those responding were already identified as complete idiots.

It is difficult to listen to a Gallups broadcast without suspecting that this is also his intent. Seriously… “universe shattering?” “Deeper and deeper, darker and darker?” “Tons of evidence is piling up,” but “I’m not at liberty to tell you” what it is? Scores of “VIPs are on board,” powerful people with “unlimited financial resources” and “standing” to “move this forward to congressional investigations” or” criminal prosecutions,” but I can’t tell you who any of them are?

What rational person could listen to months of such elaborate and melodramatic gibberish and not run for the door? The argument that this has been nothing more than an elaborate grift designed to separate the most credulous and vulnerable of birthers from their retirement checks is not without merit.

If it is not all merely an elaborate grift, other possibilities certainly present themselves. There can be no doubt that birthism is, at its core, an expression of fundamentally racist impulse. This is not to say that all birthers are racists, or more specifically that either Gallups or Zullo are racist. Certainly, there has been next to nothing in their statements, writing or actions that betray an obviously racist motivation. But they embrace enthusiastically the contention that Obama is somehow “other.” That he is not a “real” American. That he is undeserving of the respect and deference generally offered all 42 previous American Presidents. It is not the wild exaggerations of his mainstream, center-right policies as “communist” or “Marxist” that are the most concerning. It is the conviction that he is himself unacceptably “different” that gives cause to consider the consuming disapproval as a mere euphemism for less socially acceptable opinions.

Finally, there is always the possibility that Gallups and Zullo are actually true believers; that they actually do believe that Barack Obama is not a natural born US citizen, and therefore ineligible for the position he has held now for more than 5 years. Such a circumstance would not reflect well on their intelligence, but then again neither of them has ever demonstrated any but the most ordinary of intellectual gifts. Zullo is demonstrably one of the worst investigators in the history of the profession. And without the technological help of the Internet, Gallups would still be just an obscure southern pastor of only the 2nd Largest SBC congregation in the Podunk town of Milton, Florida.

But true believers are simply impervious to evidence, to reason, to rational considerations of possibility or reality. They cannot be wrong. It s not among their conceptual options.
On October 22nd, 1844 tens of thousands of people gathered on hill tops and looked to the sky. They were waiting for the arrival of Jesus Christ.

These were the “Millerites,” the followers of the teachings of Baptist lay-preacher William Miller who in 1831, first shared publicly his belief that the world was roughly a decade away from the Second Coming. After a series of several missed predictions based on arcane calculations using clues from the Book of Daniel, anticipation had finally soared among the 100 thousand believers that finally, this was it; October 22nd, 1844. Many sold, discarded or gave away all their earthly possessions. Most garbed themselves entirely in white robes, wanting the appropriate dress for their entry into the Kingdom of God. When the day ended without event, it became known as “The Great Disappointment,” and commenced a period of confusion, schism and ultimately vast sectarian realignment among American Christians.

Efforts to explain the prediction’s failure were diverse and legion. Some claimed it had failed because of bad math. Some that it had failed because they used the wrong calendar. Others blamed their collective faith, or rationalized that Christ had actually come after all but was in hiding during the “tarrying time.” Almost none of those who had stood on the mountain tops with their faces raised that day ventured to suggest a simpler, more fundamental reason for the prediction’s failure.

It was never going to happen, period. They were just wrong. But William Miller still went to his grave five years later convinced that Christ’s second coming was just about to happen. Any day now.

That was December 20, 1849. More than one hundred and sixty years ago. It still hasn’t happened.

April 18th, 2014 was almost three weeks after the most recent of Gallups’ failed deadlines for releasing the results of the Posse investigation. On Freedom Friday nothing had changed. “More information” was still coming in. The release still “will happen.” It’s “amazing the stuff they’re uncovering.”

And the investigation, was going “swimmingly”

The End

[RC: This is the final article in a series of guest articles on Carl Gallups by Frank Arduini. Here is Part X. My sincere gratitude goes to Frank for allowing me to publish this entire series. It is in draft from. An complete footnoted version will be coming soon to SCRIBD. I will also link it here when Frank completes it.]

About these ads
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birther Radio, Birthers, Cold Case Posse, Conspiracy Theories and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

124 Responses to "God’s Birther: The Fractal Failures of Carl Gallups"-Conclusion

  1. ramboike says:

    What a disappointment. I was expecting some serious text instead of comedy central. Obviously Frank “the nutless needledick” Arduini is a credit to his craft, and deserves his smear merchant’s degree from whatever marxist school of critical thought he studied at. A couple parts among the many I found entertaining in his presentation:

    1st- “There can be no doubt that birthism is, at its core, an expression of fundamentally racist impulse.”

    Really? Looks more to me like it’s Arduini’s sick mind projecting on to others what has become such a well known trade mark for the racially obsessed Obots. What’s causing this obsession among the Obots? Is it genetic, or maybe due to the environment they were raised in? Whatever, one can only venture to guess the original cause, but one thing we know for sure, it’s there.

    2nd- “That he (Obama) is undeserving of the respect and deference generally offered all 42 previous American Presidents.”

    Can I say “really” again? For a guy that goes by the handle “Historian Dude” he looks to be history challenged or was he trying to put one over on the ready to swallow useful idiot Obots? How many of our past legal presidents have been assassinated? How many have survived attempts, some multiple times? And what about Bush43? Mass rallies of people the same ilk as Obots marching through our American cities with signs to assassinate Bush43. Lets face the fact this is just another attempt by a historian-lightweight playing the Race Card.

    Can I speculate as to what is really going on with the Obama supporters, i.e. Obots? I think it’s all about Obama’s fundamental change for America that has the Obots in a state of ecstasy. What’s more fundamental to America than the principles & ideals contained in our founding documents? Do I need to keep going or have you caught my drift?

  2. Jim says:

    ramboike says: “What a disappointment. I was expecting some serious text instead of comedy central.”

    You’ve got to be kidding Dumbo, a fake investigation being run by a used-car salesman and an internet preacher…it SCREAMS Comedy Central! That’s why everybody in authority who have seen the so-called evidence just laughs and laughs, they’re sure that the CCP can’t be serious! :D

  3. ramboike says:

    Jim, that is not true. You’re doing the same as Arduini and making it look like the investigation is a 2 -man operation. There were 40 months of investigations that went on before the CCP was ever involved, and now there are others still investigating.

    My problem here is the smearing by both Tuttle & Arduini. I’ve even agreed with you Obots to some degree over the amount of time that has elapsed since the CCP started.

    If they stuck to a factual timeline without dragging in everything possible to do character assassinations I wouldn’t have responded to them.

    One other item I need to mention. Every Obot that has replied to my comments here on RC’s blog have either told a bold-face lie or did some serious spinning of the facts to conceal the truth – no exceptions.

  4. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    In what is certainly the least surprising response possible, you have demonstrated why the Nigerian Email Scam is still capable of hauling in multiple billions of dollars in spite of its painfully obvious fraud. So much of your whine here consists of having credulously accepted as true the most obviously phoney parts of Gallups’ and Zullo’s narrative. You are among the “true positives” in the Birther community who swallow it all. In that way, you make my point for me.

    But certainly, you cannot have imagined that the assertion that “40 months of investigations ,,, went on before the CCP was ever involved” would be helpful to the Birther narrative, did you? I mean, all that claim does is extend the timeline of uninterrupted Birther failure back more than three additional years. It incorporates the hundreds of failed court cases, several of which actually were judged on the merits and declared Obama a natural born citizen. It incorporates all the dishonest and incompetent “investigations” that went on before all the way back to fraudulent “Polarik.” My intention was to investigate just a slice of Birther failure. If you would prefer to eat the whole cake, knock yourself out.

    As to “playing the race card,” I can only point out that I personally would be thrilled to be able to play it less often. This ultimately depends however on the choice by Birthers to stop dealing it to me. I have been an inveterate Birther watcher since August of 2008 when Phil Berg filed the first Birther case. My conclusion is not a casual one. It is not created from whole cloth. It is not projected on reality from my own prejudices. It would be a trivial exercise to go back to any and every Birther forum and blog to document the thread of sometimes shameless racism that runs through them. Hell, I bet you could even do it yourself.

    Again, not all Birthers are necessarily racist, But Birthism itself is and always has been a racist lie.

    Your attempt to portray the treatment of previous Presidents as being comparable or worse than the treatment of President Obama is also a bowl of cherry picked fail. The rare and occasionally successful acts of lone assassins are not really relevant here. And as to the example you pose regarding George W. Bush, I can only observe ironically that I voted for him and witnessed the attitudes toward him from the perspective of a Bush supporter. That you consider them even close is merely a reflection of your own skewed recollection.

    In final measure, it would have been idiotic to have spent so much time reading everything I could get my hands on, and listening to countless hours of Gallups’ radio broadcasts and then to finish the piece without exploring the underlying motivations for the comprehensive and fractal failure of the Cold Case Posse in general and Gallups in particular. Historians make judgments. And often those judgments are not flattering.

    These are mine.

    Any hope for a serious response on your part evaporated with the 5th grader reference to penis sizes. Wave yours all you wish. It will win you not a single court case. It will result in not a single Posse announcement. It will change not a single election. It will repeal not a single program. That you are offended is the only sign of sense you have shown. If I were you, I would be offended too.

    History is written by the winners. But that’s only adding insult to the actual injury. Read it and weep.

  5. Rambo said

    One other item I need to mention. Every Obot that has replied to my comments here on RC’s blog have either told a bold-face lie or did some serious spinning of the facts to conceal the truth – no exceptions.

    Oh really? You mean like when NBC destroyed your ridiculous claim about how Congress under the Articles of Confederation and the Aitken Bible somehow proves we are a “Christian nation”?

  6. Jason Swenson says:

    Rambo–you said this:

    One other item I need to mention. Every Obot that has replied to my comments here on RC’s blog have either told a bold-face lie or did some serious spinning of the facts to conceal the truth – no exceptions.

    Please identify anything that has been a lie. Anything.

  7. Jim says:

    ramboike says: “One other item I need to mention. Every Obot that has replied to my comments here on RC’s blog have either told a bold-face lie or did some serious spinning of the facts to conceal the truth – no exceptions.”

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh Dumbo, how simply precious! And what is your response to all the bold-faced lies and spinning by the CCP that they’ve done to you? If you really and truly believe what they are shoveling you, the Nigerians want you! :D

  8. dumbo?!? how insulting! what a piece of garbage ‘you’ are, to speak to someone like that!
    but, seriously – Mr.ARduini, you are totally clueless –

    here you are, spouting off, a multi-page dissertation on the ‘crediblility’ of mike zullo, Sheriff ARpaio and Carl Gallups.

    First of all – what makes you so high and mighty, that you can point a finger at them, when you don’t know any one of them gentlmen personally?
    Frankly, off the hop, this is slander – when you are accusing someone, that you do not know personally, of being a ‘scammer’ – I am wondering if they have read your ‘extended piece’?
    Might what you have written about them, be defamation of character – I think that is Il-legal.

    Second – clean out your wax-filled ears, will you?
    Carl Gallups has, rightfully, been updating the pubic, who ‘are’ interested in seeing justice prevail here (even if you are not) – and, doing the best he can, to let us know, that they are still in process getting all the loose ends of this investigation wrapped up.
    Have you ever heard of the term – getting one’s ‘ducks in a row’?
    INstead of, going off, half-cocked.

    And, so what is the problem with a ‘used car salesman and a preacher being the ones to break the biggest story in political history??? hmmm? Too humble for your inflated ego?

    And, the insults!…my, my, 2nd rate investigator or worse! says who? you?!? What do you know about conducting an investigation?

    It seems to me, that you have nothing here to offer but, saul alinskyish defamations.

    You have not produced one shred of documentation to claim any of the accusations you have leveled against these men, and specifically, Mr. Gallups.

    As to this being a matter of race – what an utterly stupid remark.
    If I didn’t know better – I would assume that you were an dis-enfranchised african american, from the ghetto, brain-washed, into believing that the white man is your problem.

    No, pal, the white man is not the problem – sin, is the problem – take a look in the mirror sometime.

    And, I would love Alex JOnes to take you on, on his daily program –
    he always has a lot of fun with the likes of those who say that anyone who opposes obama is a ‘racist’! I just love to hear him say that word ‘RACIST!’
    please – phone him up and try that little quote on him and see how far you get with it!
    This, pal, is nothing to do, with color, and, everything to do, with ‘character’ and ‘eligibility’.

    When the information does come out, and it will – please don’t mind me saying, ‘I told you so.’

    ‘Universe-shattering’?…Well, I have watched these men on several videos – and they look like pretty level-headed individuals.
    I hear Mike zullo is known to be a real straight shooter.
    I don’t know him – never have met him.

    But, my gut tells me, that he is genuine. And, I am pretty good with that sort of thing.
    I think you may be eating your words, in due time – and you better be very careful – slander has its limits – even christians have their boundary lines – and, unless you are independently wealthy, I wouldn’t go there.

    Just a friendly word of caution.

    You wouldn’t be a Jesuit, would you?…just curious…L.

  9. dumbo?!? how insulting! what a piece of garbage ‘you’ are, to speak to someone like that!
    but, seriously – Mr.ARduini, you are totally clueless –

    here you are, spouting off, a multi-page dissertation on the ‘credibility’ of mike zullo, Sheriff ARpaio and Carl Gallups.

    First of all – what makes you so high and mighty, that you can point a finger at them, when you don’t know any one of the gentlemen personally?
    Frankly, off the hop, this is slander – when you are accusing someone, that you do not know personally, of being a ‘scammer’.
    I am wondering if they have read your ‘extended piece’?
    Might what you have written about them, be defamation of character? – I think that is Il-legal.

    Second – clean out your wax-filled ears, will you?
    Carl Gallups has, rightfully, been updating the public, who ‘are’ interested in seeing justice prevail here (even if you are not) – and, doing the best he can, to let us know, that they are still in process, getting all the loose ends of this investigation wrapped up.
    Have you ever heard of the term – getting one’s ‘ducks in a row’?
    INstead of, going off, half-cocked.

    And, so what is the problem with a ‘used car salesman and a preacher being the ones to break the biggest story in political history??? hmmm? Too humble for your inflated ego?

    And, the insults!…my, my, 2nd rate investigator or worse! says who? you?!? What do you know about conducting an investigation?

    It seems to me, that you have nothing here to offer but, saul alinskyish defamations.

    You have not produced one shred of documentation to claim any of the accusations you have leveled against these men, and specifically, Mr. Gallups.

    As to this being a matter of race – what an utterly stupid remark.
    If I didn’t know better – I would assume that you were a dis-enfranchised african-american, from the ghetto, brain-washed, into believing that the white man is your problem.

    No, pal, the white man is not the problem – sin, is the problem – take a look in the mirror sometime.

    And, I would love Alex JOnes to take you on, on his daily program –
    he always has a lot of fun with the likes of those who say that anyone who opposes obama is a ‘racist’! I just love to hear him say that word ‘RACIST!’
    please – phone him up and try that little quote on him and see how far you get with it!
    This, pal, is nothing to do, with color, and, everything to do, with ‘character’ and ‘eligibility’.

    When the information does come out, and it will – please don’t mind me saying, ‘I told you so.’

    ‘Universe-shattering’?…Well, I have watched these men on several videos – and they look like pretty level-headed individuals.
    I hear Mike zullo is known to be a real straight shooter.
    I don’t know him – never have met him.

    But, my gut tells me, that he is genuine. And, I am pretty good with that sort of thing.
    I think you may be eating your words, in due time – and you better be very careful – slander has its limits – even christians have their boundary lines – and, unless you are independently wealthy, I wouldn’t go there.

    Just a friendly word of caution.

    You wouldn’t be a Jesuit, would you?…just curious…L.

    reposted, with typo corrections, thankyou. l.

  10. point3r says:

    Third time’s a charm,

  11. Jim says:

    LAYNA JAN WILSON says: “And, so what is the problem with a ‘used car salesman and a preacher being the ones to break the biggest story in political history???”

    Hi Layna! You do realize, the only story that Zullo/Gallups have broken in 3+ years is for you to send them money? Otherwise, they’ve shown nothing. It would be a shame if you were one of their victims.

    Layna says: “And, the insults!…my, my, 2nd rate investigator or worse! says who? you?!? What do you know about conducting an investigation? ”

    I come from a family of Police Officers, and they will tell you to a man that this ain’t no police investigation, just a bunch of old men who never grew up trying to play cop.

    Layna says:”But, my gut tells me, that he is genuine. And, I am pretty good with that sort of thing.”

    And con men are very good at getting people like you to believe them, and to get you to give to them. Congrats, you make a wonderful mark.

  12. roxy7655 says:

    Ah, Layna…

    What we’re saying is true. Deep inside, you must know your so-called ‘patriotic heroes’ are lying to you. And you’re part of the problem, the thing that keeps them going. If you don’t figure out pretty quickly that they were conning you, you’ll regret it. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.

    Here’s looking at you, kid.

  13. ramboike says:

    Yo Arduini,

    Layna got both of us. For my part I want to say “I was wrong”. There are other more ethical words I could of used to get the same effect.

    If she thinks yours is bad (which it is) then she needs to read Tuttle’s which is an absolute piece of trash.

    Either later today or tomorrow I’ll reply to the Obots who have responded to me. I’m doing some research on something being discussed at Birther Report (probably a big nothing), and what’s going on at Lucas Smith’s blog.

    [Apparently I have to keep checking "Notify me of follow-up comments via email" to know who has responded to me ?]

  14. Jason Swenson says:

    Ike, I asked you to identify even one lie. You have failed to do so. Did you, like your hero Gallups, lie?

  15. ramboike says:

    Jason, I’ll do one of yours now so you’ll stop the crying.

    Jason Swenson on 3/27/14: “To bad you are completely wrong Rambo. Anyone with even basic legal training would have to come to the conclusion that Wong was NBC. Here is a hint son, if you have to create a fictitious third form a citizenship in order to make your conclusion work then your conclusion is wrong. Citizen is an umbrella term that encompasses all forms of citizenship, of which there are only two, Natural Born and Naturalized. As it was legally impossible for Wong to be a naturalized citizen, then he must have been natural born, which is confirmed by the dissenting opinion.” (end)

    The holding in the Wong Court overturned for KimArk the naturalization act thus making him a citizen, and possibly violated the U.S. agreement with the emperor of China. The minor dissenting opinion had no authority in what was ruled.

  16. Rambo said

    The holding in the Wong Court overturned for KimArk the naturalization act thus making him a citizen, and possibly violated the U.S. agreement with the emperor of China. The minor dissenting opinion had no authority in what was ruled.

    WKA did not overturn the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was how the agreement with Emperor of China was eventually codified into law. Gray said this in his majority opinion:

    It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.

    In other words Gray said the case was not about whether Wong Kim Ark could naturalize. He could not by law. That law that was not overturned. Congress had the power to determine who can naturalize. The court said that if Ark was a citizen by birth the Exclusion Act did not apply to him. If the court were overturning the Exclusion Act as unconstitutional it would have said so. It did not. The court ruled WKA was a natural born citizen. It was the only kind he could be.

  17. point3r says:

    @LAYNA JAN WILSON

    We may as well start here:

    dumbo?!? how insulting! what a piece of garbage ‘you’ are, to speak to someone like that!
    but, seriously – Mr.ARduini, you are totally clueless –

    Having called nobody “dumbo” at any time, I can only respond as we used to in Ranger School to a patrol leader who had just blown their assignment: “Nice attack. Wrong hill.”

    First of all – what makes you so high and mighty, that you can point a finger at them, when you don’t know any one of them gentlmen personally?

    General English literacy combined with a keen eye for bullshit.

    Frankly, off the hop, this is slander – when you are accusing someone, that you do not know personally, of being a ‘scammer’ – I am wondering if they have read your ‘extended piece’?
    Might what you have written about them, be defamation of character – I think that is Il-legal.

    Actually, “off the hop” this could only (at the very worst) be libel, not slander. It is written rather than spoken. On the other hand, when I repeat these comments orally (probably next week on Reality Check Radio), then they would become potentially slanderous. But sadly they are neither since 1) truth is an absolute defense against either, and 2) Gallups’ and Zullo’s positions as public figures requires that they prove I acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). Since I am of the conviction that everything I wrote was true, it is for them an unattainable standard. I’m sorry if that makes you sad.

    Carl Gallups has, rightfully, been updating the pubic, who ‘are’ interested in seeing justice prevail here (even if you are not) – and, doing the best he can, to let us know, that they are still in process getting all the loose ends of this investigation wrapped up.
    Have you ever heard of the term – getting one’s ‘ducks in a row’?
    INstead of, going off, half-cocked.

    Your opinion here is noted. My piece makes a solid case that nothing you wrote there is actually true. I am confident that Gallups has no ducks.

    And, so what is the problem with a ‘used car salesman and a preacher being the ones to break the biggest story in political history??? hmmm? Too humble for your inflated ego?

    It is not a problem. It is an explanation. For what you ask? For how completely they have bungled this alleged “investigation.” In short, it is the same problem as with a blacksmith and a tennis player performing a vasectomy.

    As to this being a matter of race – what an utterly stupid remark.
    If I didn’t know better – I would assume that you were an dis-enfranchised african american, from the ghetto, brain-washed, into believing that the white man is your problem.

    But since (as you seem to admit) you know better, it’s difficult to figure out what point you were actually trying to make there. That said, this would be as good a point as any to accept the simple and pragmatic truth this is and will be the verdict of history. Birthism is and always has been a racist lie.

    All else is commentary.

    You wouldn’t be a Jesuit, would you?…just curious…L.

    Nope. I learned my theology form the Dominicans.

  18. point3r says:

    @ramboike

    The holding in the Wong Court overturned for KimArk the naturalization act thus making him a citizen, and possibly violated the U.S. agreement with the emperor of China. The minor dissenting opinion had no authority in what was ruled.

    Gong.

    The ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case had no effect whatsoever on the Naturalization Act and certainly did not overturn it. It was actually completely irrelevant to that Act, especially as no one had argued that Wong was ever naturalized.

    Perhaps you are confusing the Naturalization Act with the Chinese Exclusion Acts. But even there, the Wong Kim Ark decision overturned nothing. The Exclusion Acts prohibited Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized, but this had nothing to do with Wong as he was not an immigrant. He was already a natural born US citizen.

    No one claimed that the dissenting opinion had “authority.” It is referenced only to prove that the understanding of at least one justice involved was explicitly that the result of the decision (whether you agree with it or not) was to declare Wong a natural born US citizen. We can go further and prove that the government’s attorney (who lost the case) also explicitly understood this simple fact.

    So RI, Justice Fuller got it. Attorney George Collins got it. The three judge panel in the Ankeny Decision. I got it.

    What’s your excuse?

    Bottom line, if that was intended to demonstrate a lie by Jason Swenson, you failed rather miserably. You didn’t even demonstrate that was wrong.

  19. ramboike says:

    It looks like you’ve bought the lie. You’re basing natural born on Jus Soli only. Gray misconstrued what Bingham & Trumball stated, maybe deliberately to cover for Arthur.

    Bingham: “…that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

    With Kim Ark’s parents owing allegiance to the Chinese Emporer he couldn’t possibly be a natural born citizen.

  20. With Kim Ark’s parents owing allegiance to the Chinese Emporer he couldn’t possibly be a natural born citizen.

    Gray said precisely the opposite in the majority opinion. He said that WKA could not become a naturalized citizen because Congress forbade it. Therefore, he was ruled to be a natural born citizen since they had to pick one from Column A or Column B. They picked Column A and had fired rice with that. ;)

    I understand why John Woodman gave up on you as a lost cause now. Either you cannot read or you are dishonest, or both.

    On edit:

    So now you are saying that the Emperor of China determined who could be come a US natural born citizen? What is about you Birthers placing foreign powers and laws above the US Constitution?

  21. point3r says:

    @ramboike

    It looks like you’ve bought the lie.

    I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate any lie at all, let alone one that I have allegedly “bought.”

    You’re basing natural born on Jus Soli only. Gray misconstrued what Bingham & Trumball stated, maybe deliberately to cover for Arthur.

    Am I safe to understand that by completely changing to a radically different argument you are conceding the one that was already underway? I’m perfectly cool with that, but would like to know if that was your deliberate intention, or merely an accidental artifact of your inability to follow your own arguments.

    That said, I would never base natural born status exclusively on jus soli. That is because jus soli is a sufficient criterion but not a necessary one. One can also be born overseas to a citizen parent or parents. That too is a sufficient though not a necessary criterion for natural born citizenship.

    The US Constitution (as well as more than 500 years of Anglo-American Common Law) recognizes two and only two classes of citizen; natural born and naturalized. There is no third class.

    Bingham: “…that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

    As Representative Bingham had nothing whatsoever to do with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, and since he was not yet even born at the Framing of the Constitution proper, I am at a loss as to why you appear to afford him any unusual authority on the definition of “natural born citizen.” But even were we to grant him some special status, the quotation returned to context is not helpful to you. Rather than slay again the already slain, I will point to John Woodman’s comprehensive discussion here: http://tinyurl.com/mzkygg5

    Enjoy.

    With Kim Ark’s parents owing allegiance to the Chinese Emporer he couldn’t possibly be a natural born citizen.

    Even ignoring the prior discussion, a decision of the Supreme Court rather patently trumps the opinion of a single Congressman.

    Thanks for playing. Try again.

  22. ramboike says:

    RC, unless the Gray Court was trying to overturn what I quoted from Bingham, the primary crafter of the 14th Amendment, then not only was Kim Ark unable to be naturalized, but due to his parents he could never be a natural born citizen. The only other option available would be to create another type of citizenship.

  23. point3r says:

    @ramboike

    RC, unless the Gray Court was trying to overturn what I quoted from Bingham, the primary crafter of the 14th Amendment, then not only was Kim Ark unable to be naturalized, but due to his parents he could never be a natural born citizen.

    What a goofy concept. Are you seriously trying to suggest that comments during a congressional debate carry some sort of authority that would require a Supreme Court Decision to overturn? Perhaps you have mistaken some other nation’s Constitution for our own. Because in all honestly, I can’t seem to find that provision.

    And one more time: Bingham had exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

    The only other option available would be to create another type of citizenship.

    No other option is necessary.

  24. John Woodman addressed the Bingham quote in a long article that was a reply to an email from Helen Tansey. It is no use rehashing ground that has been covered before.

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/03/an-open-letter-to-helen-tansey-director-of-article-ii-super-pac-on-the-views-of-rep-john-bingham-and-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

  25. ramboike says:

    point3r, didn’t SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse case address the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause? “Subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude children of citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States? And didn’t both the majority & minority opinion agree on that?

  26. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    It did. However 1) since the Slaughterhouse Cases had nothing to do with birthright citizenship the comment was dismissed as mere dictum by subsequent courts. 2) If that had ever actually been a ruling by the Supreme Court, it was overturned by Wong Kim Ark.

  27. ramboike says:

    RC,

    Re: “So now you are saying that the Emperor of China determined who could be come a US natural born citizen? What is about you Birthers placing foreign powers and laws above the US Constitution?”

    I never said that. What I said was the U.S. made an agreement with the Emperor of China to not naturalize the citizen of the other’s country, and because of the right to expatriate it should be seen as pandering to the Emperor.

    Is it bothering you that a greenhorn like me on law is keeping up with yas?

  28. Northland10 says:

    I remember students who would bellow on, declare victory and storm out of the room. Yet, they still had detention, and I went on as normal (including when one student said “you’ll be surprised when you get fired.” I was never fired and she failed to graduate.).

    I bet you are sobbing in your soup, RC, as some anonymous person “showed you.”

  29. NBC says:

    Is it bothering you that a greenhorn like me on law is keeping up with yas?

    That greenhorn appears to be rather slow. But there is a difference between naturalization and natural born, the latter automatically follows from birth on soil under jurisdiction.

    Your problem is with understand owing allegiance and to what nation Wong Kim Ark owed allegiance at the time of his birth: It was the US.

    But you would have known this if you had read and comprehended the court case in question.

    Such a noob

  30. NBC says:

    And didn’t both the majority & minority opinion agree on that?

    Does RamboIke not understand the meaning if dicta and the relevance of later rulings?

    Read US v WKA where the court addresses these issues

    That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship), “reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 ofparents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

    Learn and research before you make a fool of yourself…

  31. Rambo claimed he read the Wong Kim Ark decision. I have yet to see any evidence of that.

  32. NBC says:

    Rambo claimed he read the Wong Kim Ark decision. I have yet to see any evidence of that.

    Maybe the Cliff note’s version of it but if he had read the whole ruling, and comprehended it, he would not have made such foolish assertions.

  33. ramboike says:

    Now their coming out of the woodwork.

    1st we have Northland, King of the Red Herring, who told us last year on Squeeky Fromm’s blog that children of invading armies born on American soil were natural born American citizens, and so too were the children of foreign ambassadors born on soil. When I engage him to explain it he cut & run, and never came back. Lmao

    Northland also posted up a Woodman link on Squeeky’s blog that I hadn’t read before. Around 2 to 3 paragraphs in I started finding errors on Jamestown. Was it Woodman’s errors since he showed me he had a weak outline of history, or was it the errors of his copy & paste from who was researching on Natural born citizen? I don’t know, but if it’s the latter then it opens all his research to suspicion.

  34. ramboike says:

    Next up is NBC, who RC is trying to protect with some serious spinning over his bold-face lies on the Aitkin Bible.

    What NBC needs to do is get the editor of Wikipedia to retract the sites opening statement on the Aitkin Bible: “The Aitken Bible of 1782 was reviewed, approved and authorized by the US Congress.” Then changed to: “US Congress never approved and authorized the Aitkin Bible.”

    If he does that then I’ll get serious and revisit it. Until that happens NBC’s lies borders on being pathological.

  35. ramboike says:

    Now we come to RC with more to go. This character I could write a book on but for the time being I’ll stick to his spinning in this thread.

    RC in spin mode: “Oh really? You mean like when NBC destroyed your ridiculous claim about how Congress under the Articles of Confederation and the Aitken Bible somehow proves we are a “Christian nation”? ”

    Anyone who has done any research knows that RC is doing a spin job for NBC.

    The bigger question that isn’t answered: Was America seen as a Christian Nation? Of course it was. Just like Israel is seen as a Jewish/Hebrew nation, and muslim countries as Islamic nations. Almost all the American founders were raised from birth studying the Bible. In a 1892 Supreme Court case. The U.S. Supreme Court held that a statute could not be applied to pastors because this is a Christian Nation. Where did that idea of America being a christian nation come from? From those that 1st sailed to America. Their intended purpose always had connections to the christian religion or the God of the Christian Bible.

    It’s one thing to hate the Bible, Christianity, and God, but can’t you at least tell the truth about the America of our founding?

  36. ramboike says:

    point3r: “No one claimed that the dissenting opinion had “authority.” It is referenced only to prove that the understanding of at least one justice involved was explicitly that the result of the decision (whether you agree with it or not) was to declare Wong a natural born US citizen..”

    Where did Gray declare Wong a natural born US citizen? Whenever I’ve asked that question the Obots bring Fuller’s statement. As you said the dissenting opinion had no authority.

    The only time I did any research on this was the short time 2 years ago when I commented on Woodman’s blog. Wong is the only case I ever read. RC knows this because he was there when I said so. I don’t remember what site I named at the time, it’s there, could of been either the Federalist blog or maybe Findlaw. It was very long and problem I had was it kept referencing other case which I knew nothing about and didn’t have the time to research them. After reading it I read maybe a dozen site giving opinions on it from that I formed my own opinion it was bad law.

  37. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    What I said was the U.S. made an agreement with the Emperor of China to not naturalize the citizen of the other’s country,

    And agreement that has nothing to do with the Wong Kim Ark case. Wong was never naturalized.

  38. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    Where did Gray declare Wong a natural born US citizen? Whenever I’ve asked that question the Obots bring Fuller’s statement. As you said the dissenting opinion had no authority.

    He made no specific declaration for Wong. He did more than that, and he did better than that. He provided a general definition of natural born citizen that remains to this day the only definition that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court. To wit:

    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.

    This is the crucial ratio decidendi that settled the issue that every child born on US soil of alien parents to be a natural-born citizen 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. And this is, of course, inclusive of Wong Kim Ark.

    Again. Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got it. The three judge panel in Ankeny got it. I get it.

    I ask again… what’s your excuse?

    After reading it I read maybe a dozen site giving opinions on it from that I formed my own opinion it was bad law.

    What would possibly give you cause to imagine that your opinion is of general interest to anyone? The Supreme Court has spoken, and no subsequent court has demonstrated any difficult in following the precedent.

  39. NBC says:

    And agreement that has nothing to do with the Wong Kim Ark case. Wong was never naturalized.

    Exactly but that requires one to actually read and comprehend the ruling.

  40. Northland10 says:

    1st we have Northland, King of the Red Herring, who told us last year on Squeeky Fromm’s blog that children of invading armies born on American soil were natural born American citizens, and so too were the children of foreign ambassadors born on soil. When I engage him to explain it he cut & run, and never came back. Lmao

    Nice Red Herring, Rambo… but if we must review, the actual statement in question was in response to Laity. I was repeating a Catechism on the Constitution (yes, I was quoting a document)

    Northland10
    June 30th, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Have your read 48 on the 1828 Catachism on the Constitution on the website of the “American Justice Foundation?”
    Q. May any person be chosen President of the United States?
    A. Not every person; none may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such one be chosen if he is less than thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for fourteen years.
    Nothing about parents.
    I recall you have some affiliation with this group. They materials disagree with your opinion.

    ramboike

    July 3rd, 2013 at 9:05 am
    So you’re saying the children of foreign ambassadors, ministers, and invading armies born on American soil can be president too when they reach the age of 35 and have live on the soil for 14 years?

    I was quoting a document on the specific question of 2 parent citizen’s. It is you who made the claim I was making a claim about ambassadors, ministers and invading armies. Your error was compounded by thinking my ignoring you was some sort of admission. The only thing it admits is that you are only an ignorant troll who was not worthy of my time. I only bother with a response now should the others want to know to what you were referring.

    But, thank you for proving my point that you are acting like nothing more than some child who thinks he told off the teacher, yet, Obama is still President, and more birther cases fall. It must be sad that your success in life revolves around trying to look like you are winning against some anonymous people on the internet.

    You may now respond to a hand, because the rest of me could care less what you think.

  41. point3r says:

    Oh my, so when ramboike is saying…

    1st we have Northland, King of the Red Herring, who told us last year on Squeeky Fromm’s blog that children of invading armies born on American soil were natural born American citizens, and so too were the children of foreign ambassadors born on soil.

    … he is lying through his teeth?

    Some day a birther is going to make an accusation that is not ironic, and I will throw a party.

    With cake.

  42. Jason Swenson says:

    ramboike says:
    April 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    Jason, I’ll do one of yours now so you’ll stop the crying.

    Jason Swenson on 3/27/14: “To bad you are completely wrong Rambo. Anyone with even basic legal training would have to come to the conclusion that Wong was NBC. Here is a hint son, if you have to create a fictitious third form a citizenship in order to make your conclusion work then your conclusion is wrong. Citizen is an umbrella term that encompasses all forms of citizenship, of which there are only two, Natural Born and Naturalized. As it was legally impossible for Wong to be a naturalized citizen, then he must have been natural born, which is confirmed by the dissenting opinion.” (end)

    The holding in the Wong Court overturned for KimArk the naturalization act thus making him a citizen, and possibly violated the U.S. agreement with the emperor of China. The minor dissenting opinion had no authority in what was ruled.

    That was hardly a lie. That was the correct analysis of the law, as confirmed by every case that has come down the pike. Do I need to go over the cases where the Court equated natural boran and native citizens, including Minor V. Happersett.

    And no, you are not keeping up with you. You are so far out of your league so as to make me laugh,

  43. Jason Swenson says:

    Reposted to fix errors and add content

    ramboike says:
    April 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    Jason, I’ll do one of yours now so you’ll stop the crying.

    Jason Swenson on 3/27/14: “To bad you are completely wrong Rambo. Anyone with even basic legal training would have to come to the conclusion that Wong was NBC. Here is a hint son, if you have to create a fictitious third form a citizenship in order to make your conclusion work then your conclusion is wrong. Citizen is an umbrella term that encompasses all forms of citizenship, of which there are only two, Natural Born and Naturalized. As it was legally impossible for Wong to be a naturalized citizen, then he must have been natural born, which is confirmed by the dissenting opinion.” (end)

    That was hardly a lie. That was the correct analysis of the law, as confirmed by every case that has come down the pike. Do I need to go over the cases where the Court equated natural boran and native citizens, including Minor V. Happersett? And your opinion as to whether WKA was correctly or incorrectly decided is irrelevant. Once the Supreme Court that becomes the statement of the law in this Country unless and until another case comes along to overrule or there is action by Congress. And as you have been correctly told, although the Supreme Court did not specifically state that WKA was NBC, it did provide a definition of NBC and as WKA met that definition, he was NBC. Further, it was legally impossible for WKA to become a naturalized citizen. So in order for him to be a citizen of any kind, he had to be natural born, as those are the only two forms of citizenship that exist.

    And no, you are not keeping up with you. You are so far out of your league so as to make me laugh,

  44. You guys do not understand Rambo’s clever argument. He has to pretend that the Supreme Court naturalized WKA even though they said specifically they were not doing that. Otherwise he would have to admit that WKA was a natural born citizen. When you can’t reason your way to the desired conclusion then pretend the facts are different than what they really are to get you where you want to be. It is in the Birther playbook.

  45. Jason Swenson says:

    I am having a blonde moment. I needed to fix more mistakes.

    Reposted to fix errors and add content

    ramboike says:
    April 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    Jason, I’ll do one of yours now so you’ll stop the crying.

    Jason Swenson on 3/27/14: “To bad you are completely wrong Rambo. Anyone with even basic legal training would have to come to the conclusion that Wong was NBC. Here is a hint son, if you have to create a fictitious third form a citizenship in order to make your conclusion work then your conclusion is wrong. Citizen is an umbrella term that encompasses all forms of citizenship, of which there are only two, Natural Born and Naturalized. As it was legally impossible for Wong to be a naturalized citizen, then he must have been natural born, which is confirmed by the dissenting opinion.” (end)

    That was hardly a lie. That was the correct analysis of the law, as confirmed by every case that has come down the pike. Do I need to go over the cases where the Court equated natural boran and native citizens, including Minor V. Happersett? And your opinion as to whether WKA was correctly or incorrectly decided is irrelevant. Once the Supreme Court that becomes the statement of the law in this Country unless and until another case comes along to overrule or there is action by Congress. And as you have been correctly told, although the Supreme Court did not specifically state that WKA was NBC, it did provide a definition of NBC and as WKA met that definition, he was NBC. Further, it was legally impossible for WKA to become a naturalized citizen. So in order for him to be a citizen of any kind, he had to be natural born, as those are the only two forms of citizenship that exist.

    And no, you are not keeping up with us. You are so far out of your league so as to make me laugh.

  46. Jim says:

    Reality Check says: “It is in the Birther playbook.”

    It’s their old, moldy, out-of-date, long-debunked playbook. I had this exact same discussion with Dumbo over 5 years ago, as probably a bunch of anti-birthers have. And that, Layna, is why I call him Dumbo…he never learns.

  47. Jason Swenson says:

    Reality Check says:
    April 23, 2014 at 10:22 am
    You guys do not understand Rambo’s clever argument. He has to pretend that the Supreme Court naturalized WKA even though they said specifically they were not doing that. Otherwise he would have to admit that WKA was a natural born citizen. When you can’t reason your way to the desired conclusion then pretend the facts are different than what they really are to get you where you want to be. It is in the Birther playbook.

    Other than the fiction that WKA created a third form a citizenship, that is the worst possible analysis of that decision. My post though, was in response to him calling me a liar when I challenged him to identify a single post that was directed at him which contained a lie.

    Even if I was wrong about the meaning of WKA, and I am not, it represents my opinion. Therefore, I am not lying, which would require me to hold the opposite opinion despite my written opinion. Ike is therefore an idiot and well deserving of the nickname, Dumbo.

  48. Reality Check says: “It is in the Birther playbook.”

    It’s their old, moldy, out-of-date, long-debunked playbook. I had this exact same discussion with Dumbo over 5 years ago, as probably a bunch of anti-birthers have. And that, Layna, is why I call him Dumbo…he never learns.

    This horse has been beaten to death for sure as has the misinterpretation of Minor v Happersett dicta by Apuzzo, Donofrio and even Orly (yes, she actually was on the two parent citizen band wagon for a while). The problem for Rambo and the Birthers is that several courts have looked at the two parent citizen theory and said there is nothing to it, no one other than a small group of fringe scholars buy into it, President Obama is eligible and free to complete his full second term, and if it is an issue in the 2016 presidential race it will be about a Republican. I am willing to bet money that Cruz, Rubio, and Jindahl would all be ruled eligible if someone manages to properly frame a challenge.

  49. Jim says:

    point3r says: “Your attempt to portray the treatment of previous Presidents as being comparable or worse than the treatment of President Obama is also a bowl of cherry picked fail. The rare and occasionally successful acts of lone assassins are not really relevant here. And as to the example you pose regarding George W. Bush, I can only observe ironically that I voted for him and witnessed the attitudes toward him from the perspective of a Bush supporter. That you consider them even close is merely a reflection of your own skewed recollection.”

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

    “According to some reports, President George W. Bush received about 3,000 threats a year, while his successor Barack Obama received about four times that many.”

    https://aattp.org/investigating-death-threats-against-obama-has-become-a-full-time-job-for-the-secret-service/

    “The Secret Service does not tell even the President how many death threats they investigate, but there are indications that there may be as many as 30 a day — with a total of about 40,000 since 2007.”

    Wonder how many threats Bush got about…”Another Michigan man, James Allen Meyers of Dearborn Heights was arrested after making calls to the FCC and National Geographic magazine saying, “I’m gonna hang our. . .president from a tree outside the White House with a burning cross and a swastika on the lawn.””?

  50. ramboike says:

    Northland,
    Very clever of you to bring a fallacy to cover, but no cigar. On June 30th you used that 1828 Catachism trying to debunk Laity saying “Nothing about parents.” I checked it out and when Laity didn’t respond, 3 days later on 7/3 I responded because I didn’t find in it any of what I listed as being excluded. You stayed silent. 2 days later I tried again adding in illegals. Still no response from you. On 7/11 I noted that you cut & run from the question. You showed up on 7/13 but not to address the question, instead peddling a new gimmick to avoid it. On 7/15, laughing at your cut & run tactics, I ask again after posting a poem for ya:

    A different day, oh what can I say,
    “Another Obot runs away”;
    Excuses plenty, smears galore,
    Loss of integrity at their core;
    While I ponder on their lore,
    The Raven harks, “it’s forevermore.”

    On the 17th SlowBob tried to cover for you with a nonsensical question where I referred him to you as the one to ask. To this day the questions have never been answered.

  51. ramboike says:

    SlowJim

    Do you remember any part of the discussion we had over 5 years ago? Let me help you out:

    Jan. 2011- got an email from someone who has a blog that I’ve helped with some of the issues for a number of years. The email gives some links to what turned out to be anti-Birther/Birther debunking sites. Had no idea what they were about until I started reading some of the comments. In the email I was asked if I could figure out who the people were. They had their ideas of who these people were and wanted me to verify it. In my return email I stated: “is this a practical joke?”, and something to the effect of “are these Americans?” I also said it would take some time and I’d have to engage them for awhile before I could be sure.

    June 03, 2011 at 04:07 AM- My 1st comments ever to any of the Obots on anti-Birther sites. Left 2 at Bad Fiction. Didn’t post again till the following year; 2012. I had to much to do in 2011 and didn’t have the time for what I was asked to do. ~grin~

  52. ramboike says:

    Jason Swenson

    You and RC both lied.

    RC: “The court ruled WKA was a natural born citizen.”

    I’ve never seen that ruling. Actually I’ve never seen any Supreme Court case where it was ruled a child born on U.S. soil of non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen.

    Jason: “As it was legally impossible for Wong to be a naturalized citizen, then he must have been natural born, which is confirmed by the dissenting opinion.”

    You never brought any proof to show Wong was ruled a natural born citizen. How can Fuller confirm it when that ruling never happened. point3r says dissenting opinion has no authority: point3r: “No one claimed that the dissenting opinion had “authority.”

    Are we confusing it with dicta? There were alot of suggestions, implying, and opinions.

    I sure y’all will help me out if I got it wrong. Thx in advance.

  53. Jason Swenson says:

    ramboike says:
    April 23, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    Jason Swenson

    You and RC both lied.

    RC: “The court ruled WKA was a natural born citizen.”

    I’ve never seen that ruling. Actually I’ve never seen any Supreme Court case where it was ruled a child born on U.S. soil of non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen.

    Jason: “As it was legally impossible for Wong to be a naturalized citizen, then he must have been natural born, which is confirmed by the dissenting opinion.”

    You never brought any proof to show Wong was ruled a natural born citizen. How can Fuller confirm it when that ruling never happened. point3r says dissenting opinion has no authority: point3r: “No one claimed that the dissenting opinion had “authority.”

    Are we confusing it with dicta? There were alot of suggestions, implying, and opinions.

    I sure y’all will help me out if I got it wrong. Thx in advance.
    ________________________________

    Yeah, you got it wrong. As has been pointed out to you twice now, The Court provide a definition of NBC that included children born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of the their parents, with two minor exceptions. The Court also stated that there are only two kinds of citizenship, those who are born as citizens (NBC) and those who are naturalized. Once again, as the WKA was declared a citizen, and it was legally impossible for him to be a naturalized citizen, then Court must have concluded that he was NBC. It is called logic, try using it. I didn’t lie. Neither did RC. WKA was a NBC, the only people who do not believe that are deVattelist birthers.

  54. Rambo

    Let’s do this very, very slowly.

    Do you agree that the Supreme Court ruled that there are two types of citizens? That is natural born and naturalized?

  55. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    What you have written about Northland is objectively false. You are accusing him of lying, even as you concede he never said what you are calling a lie in the first place. Perhaps you should just cut your losses.

  56. NBC says:

    Do you agree that the Supreme Court ruled that there are two types of citizens? That is natural born and naturalized?

    The fact that the Supreme Court continues to reaffirm this would make it logically impossible for RamboIke to do otherwise, hence he probably disagrees.

  57. NBC says:

    It is called logic, try using it. I didn’t lie. Neither did RC. WKA was a NBC, the only people who do not believe that are deVattelist birthers.

    The dissenting judge realized what the court had done (ruled that WKA was a natural born citizen) and the Government in their appeal realized it when it argued that the issue at hand was, and I paraphrase: did to lower court err in finding WKA to be a natural born citizen.

    Somehow the logic of these matters keeps escaping some. I find that fascinating.

  58. point3r says:

    This anachronistically forthright excerpt from the Government’s attorney George D. Collins in his WKA pleadings leaves no doubt what his understanding of a decision in favor of Wong would mean:

    “For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”

  59. ramboike says:

    point3r says: “What you have written about Northland is objectively false. You are accusing him of lying, even as you concede he never said what you are calling a lie in the first place. Perhaps you should just cut your losses.”

    What? I’m not understanding your illogicalness. If this is about the 1828 Catachism on the Constitution then follow along:

    His claim was anyone born on the soil who reaches the age of 35 and has live on the soil for 14 years can be president. I couldn’t find in the text where children of invading armies, ambassadors, and ministers born on the soil were excluded. I tried many times to get him to clear that up but he wouldn’t. He left everybody with the impression they were qualified. Would you call that a lie? With the track record you’ve shown me so far you probably will agree with him.

  60. ramboike says:

    Lets try this again: RC said “The court ruled WKA was a natural born citizen.”

    All I’m asking is for one of you brainiacs to bring me that ruling where the SCOTUS ruled WongKimArk to be a natural born citizen.

  61. All I’m asking is for one of you brainiacs to bring me that ruling where the SCOTUS ruled WongKimArk to be a natural born citizen.

    I knew you would dodge that one simple question. In the majority opinion the court ruled WKA was a natural born citizen of course. Your lack of comprehension of a ruling that requires a 7th grade level of logic is apparent.

    BTW, did you know that over at Lucas Smith’s blog someone is claiming you are an undercover Obot playing the part of a complete idiot to make the Birthers look bad? If that is true you are doing a terrific job.

  62. Northland10 says:

    Point3r said:
    @ ramboike

    What you have written about Northland is objectively false. You are accusing him of lying, even as you concede he never said what you are calling a lie in the first place. Perhaps you should just cut your losses.

    He is trying to get me to respond so he can play his troll game. Not gonna work.

  63. Rambo is on thin ice for calling me a liar with no proof. This is just a friendly warning to get his act together.

  64. Jim says:

    Dumbo is bored and this is how he gets his entertainment.

  65. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    All I’m asking is for one of you brainiacs to bring me that ruling where the SCOTUS ruled WongKimArk to be a natural born citizen.

    Of course you are. That is because the only defense you have from he ruling’s complete evisceration of your position is a disingenuous quibble. It is a curious characteristic of birther argument, like the four year old who believes that he just avoids eye contact with mother she can’t see him steal the twinkie from the cupboard, that if specific magic words are not used, the clear and intended meaning of a statement can be disregarded.

    Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got it. The three judge Ankeny panel got it. All the subsequent courts that have cited Wong or Ankeny as precedent got it. RC gets it. NBC gets it. I get it.

    Again, Ike. What’s your excuse?

  66. Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got it. The three judge Ankeny panel got it. All the subsequent courts that have cited Wong or Ankeny as precedent got it. RC gets it. NBC gets it. I get it.

    Again, Ike. What’s your excuse?

    So did William D. Guthrie, one of the leading attorneys in the country at the time, when he wrote about the WKA decision in 1899:

    The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the United States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.

    :

    http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/funk-wagnalls-president-obama-is-eligible/

  67. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    What? I’m not understanding your illogicalness. If this is about the 1828 Catachism on the Constitution then follow along:

    Gong.

    No. It is not. Your compulsion to move the goal posts does not actually move them. It is about your ironic accusation that you have been lied to by all Obots in general and by Northland in particular. You have been challenged to demonstrate such a lie, and you have failed. This by definitioon renders your original assertion false. Your persistence in denial further escalates the original falsehood into a demonstrated lie of your own.

    This is not about the 1828 Catechism. It was about your accusation towards Northland. It is now about a lie of your own.

    His claim was anyone born on the soil who reaches the age of 35 and has live on the soil for 14 years can be president. I couldn’t find in the text where children of invading armies, ambassadors, and ministers born on the soil were excluded.

    Your inability to find that text in a document that Northland did not write (especially one written around a century and half prior to his birth) does not constitute a lie on either Northland’s part or the document’s. You wrote a moment ago about “illogicalness.” Your problem here is worse than simply bad logic, it is definitional. You do not appear to know what the word “lie” even means.

    You have accused Northland of lie. The lie you accuse him of is something that even you have admitted he never said in the first place. Your accusation is a fabrication from whole cloth.

    I tried many times to get him to clear that up but he wouldn’t.

    There’s that definitional problem of yours again. He has no obligation to chase every red herring you toss out. Under no rules of logic or rhetoric would his choice to refrain fro the chase be a lie.

    He left everybody with the impression they were qualified. Would you call that a lie?

    I would consider the assertion that “He left everybody with the impression they were qualified” to be at minimum false, at worst a lie. I still see exactly no lie on his part however.

    With the track record you’ve shown me so far you probably will agree with him.

    100%

  68. WKA was never ruled a NBC by SCOTUS. Basically, SCOTUS said WKA was an NBC without saying was an NBC. In fact, the court specifically stated that WKA wasn’t an NBC but a Citizen by birth. Nevertheless, they decided to rule in WKA’s favor. The best analogy I have always used to explain the WKA case was this:

    WKA may look, sound, feel and taste like a NBC but his DNA is different from an NBC. (His parent’s aren’t US citizens) ergo the court can’t actually say that WKA is a NBC. However, the DNA is something can only be seen with a microscope(A very strict and fundamental understanding for the NBC common law) but it is the Senses (The operation principle of birth) which is what matters.

    Consquently,

    Citizenship by birth is equilvalent to a NBC BUT NOT EQUAL to an NBC.

    But the US Constitution states that only “Natural Born Citizens” can be POTUS. So even though a Citizen at birth is essentially the same as NBC, person could serve but in stricter definition sense, a person couldn’t serve.

  69. “All I’m asking is for one of you brainiacs to bring me that ruling where the SCOTUS ruled WongKimArk to be a natural born citizen.”

    You won’t find it. In fact, the court even said WKA WASN’T NBC although he said he equalivent to an NBC:

    From the Decision:

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    Basically the court is saying a child of alien is NOT an NBC but is functionally equilvalent to an NBC. An NBC is one born to citizen parents. However, the operation principle, that being birth, is the same.

    Its a convulted issue.

  70. point3r says:

    @ Jim Youngblood

    Your understanding of the Court’s quotation of Horace Binney is exactly backward.

    First, Binney never calls the children of citizens “natural born citizens.” In fact, this quotation does not contain the phrase at all. Go look again. “Natural born citizen” is found nowhere in the Binney quotation. He refers to them instead as “natural born child(ren).” To the extent that those children are citizens, they “as much a citizen” as the children of aliens born in the country. It is fascinating that you seem to imagine that an assertion of equivalency is not actually an assertion of equivalency.

    Further, when Binney said that “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts,” he was rejecting jus sanguinis completely. He was saying that the citizenship of children born on national soil is not inherited at all, not under common law and not under statute. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into the 2 citizen parent theory when Binney insists that citizenship is not inherited in the first place.

    Binney is explicit here that the citizenship of children of aliens born on the soil is identical to that of the children of citizens born on the soil. For if one is NBC and the other is not, the statement that “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen” would be a lie. Binney was not known to be a liar, and SCOTUS is not general known for using liars as authorities.

    The “same principle” of course is that of jus soli as inherited from 300 years of English common law. And as we know, that common law says the children of foreigners born on national soil are natural born citizens.

    As Gray spelled it out (in the only definition of natural born citizen ever offered by the Supreme Court that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court):

    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.

    In short… it’s not convoluted in the least. It is straightforward, clear and unequivocal.

  71. Jason Swenson says:

    Only in birferstan can equivalent to not mean equal to. Mr. Youngblood, what is obvious is that you are so devoid of intellectual honesty that you will grasp at any straw to support your incorrect conclusion. Every case ever decided that touches on the issue of a NBC has said the same thing-Anyone who is born a citizen is a NBC. You can argue forever to the contrary, but nothing short of Supreme Court decision changing over 200 years of well settled law will change that simple fact.

  72. ramboike says:

    Jason Swenson

    Re: Every case ever decided that touches on the issue of a NBC has said the same thing-Anyone who is born a citizen is a NBC.

    If that is true why haven’t you Obots brought the SCOTUS ruling?

    In over 200 years I’ve never found where the SCOTUS has ever applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

  73. Jason Swenson says:

    How many will it take to make you admit that you are wrong?

  74. So Rambo is back from Lucas Smith’s blog? Maybe he can answer the simple question I posed about the two and only two classes of citizens that have been recognized by SCOTUS in multiple rulings?

  75. Jim says:

    Including their favorite…Minor
    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides[†] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”[‡] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

  76. ramboike says:

    It has been a week since I first asked yas to bring the ruling that showed the SCOTUS ruled Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. So far that hasn’t been done. Then I expanded it to include all Supreme Court cases where a child born on the soil to non-citizen parents was ruled a natural born citizen. So far nothing. So I can only conclude there has never been such a ruling.

    Now RC moves the goal posts by saying SCOTUS only recognized 2 classes of citizens. Jim clears up what RC meant by defining 2 classes of citizens as “may be born or they may be created by naturalization”.

    In my research I’ve found there to be 3 classifications of citizenship. The 1st one has expired. It was a granted citizenship to those born prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Another was Naturalization. A 3rd class is Jim’s born citizen that had more than 1 type of which natural born citizen would be one of them.

    Here’s where logic has to come into play. If Kim Ark couldn’t be naturalized, and no proof has been provided by the Obots of a natural born citizen ruling for Kim Ark by the SCOTUS then there has to be another type under the born citizen classification.

  77. If Kim Ark couldn’t be naturalized, and no proof has been provided by the Obots of a natural born citizen ruling for Kim Ark by the SCOTUS then there has to be another type under the born citizen classification.

    No proof except Gray’s entire ruling written to define who were natural born citizens. If you are correct Rambo then you of course should be able to provide links to contemporary legal articles discussing this new class of citizen created by the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898. That would have been a significant ruling and would have been a topic for discussion wouldn’t it? I have done quite a bit of research and haven’t found them.

  78. Jason Swenson says:

    Rambo ignores the express language in WKA, where court stated that there are only two kinds of citizen. Then he engages in what passes for bitther logic. He does not understand something so he creates a fiction. Literally the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that WKA was a NBC because there are only two forms of citizenship and he could not be naturalized. But instead of accepting that simple truth he creates a fictitious third form of citizenship. Rambo is beyond ludicrous.

  79. Jason Swenson says:

    In Minor the Court stated that a citizen at birth is a NBC. In WKA , the court was even clearer, subsequent cases, like Luria and Baumgarter, saw the court say that a NBC and a native citizen are the same thing. That is 4 Rambo. Now just shut the f up because you have no clue what you are talking about.

  80. Here are the cases where Barack Obama has been ruled to be a natural born citizen. SCOTUS has upheld every one that has been appealed to them.

    Rambo can come back when he has digested these. (The citations haven’t been updated in a while).

    Birther Cases with Decisions Recognizing that Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen”

    Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to serve as President.

    See, e.g., Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“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”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md. Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012 (relying on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark to hold that Obama is a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as President); Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar et al v. Obama et al., No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (overruling objection to Obama’s placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 112 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 103) which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States); Galasso v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection to Obama’s placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 113 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 104) which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States); Kesler v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”); Jordan v. Secretary of State Sam Reed, No. 12-2-01763-5, 2012 WL 4739216 (Wash. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2012) (dismissing as frivolous plaintiff’s complaint seeking to prevent state from including Obama on 2012 ballot, noting that many similar birther claims had been filed and, in some cases, such as Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009), courts addressed the merits of the birther claims; concluding: “just as all the so-called evidence offered by plaintiff has been in the blogosphere for years, in one form or another, so too has all the law rejecting plaintiff’s allegations. I can conceive of no reason why this lawsuit was brought, except to join the chorus of noise in that blogosphere. The case is dismissed.”); Judd et al v. Obama et al, No. 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (dismissing lawsuit purportedly removed by plaintiffs from state court case to federal court); Judd et al v. Obama et al, No. 8:12-cv-01888-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (dismissing lawsuit stating election fraud, RICO, and various other claims seeking to prevent Obama from being on 2012 general election ballot (among other things); Martin v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 111 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision in Freeman and Jackson primary challenges (12 SOEB GP 103 and 12 SOEB GP 104), which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States); Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV (Vt. Superior Ct., Sept. 21, 2012) (denying motion
    for temporary restraining order to prevent placement of Obama on the 2012 general election ballot and holding that “[t]he common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: “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”), citing Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); Powell v. Obama, No. OSAHSECSTATE- CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Purpura v Obama, No. STE 04588- 12, 2012 WL 1369003 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen “eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012) aff’d, No. A-004478-11-T03, 2012 WL 1949041 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, No. 071052 (N.J. Sept. 7, 2012); Strunk v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections et al, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), 2012 WL 1205117, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012) (N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging, among other things, President Obama’s eligibility to his office; expressly rejecting the birther claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis of his father’s citizenship as frivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be imposed upon plaintiff); Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar.
    2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born itizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), aff’d, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. Jun 5, 2012) (per curiam); Voeltz v. Obama, No. 37 2012 CA 000467, 2012 WL 2524874 (Fla. 2nd Cir., Jun. 29, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot; finding that persons born in US are NBCs per Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, regardless of parentage and rejecting birther argument to the contrary); Voeltz v. Obama, No. 37 2012 CA 002063 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Sept. 6, 2012) (dismissing complaint seeking declaration that Obama is not eligible for presidency because he was not born in US and was not born to two US citizen parents; finding that persons born in US are “natural born citizens” per Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, regardless of parentage and rejecting birther argument to the contrary; reserving for later ruling motion for sanctions); Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1059 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012).

  81. Yes, all of these cases were based ultimately on the WKA case, a SCOTUS case where WKA was never ruled an Natural Born Citizen even though according to the Obots, You only have to be born in this country to be an NBC…ergo the SCOTUS should have ruled WKA a “Natural Born Citizen”, but they didn’t. (Remember, according to Obots, there are only 2 citizens, Natural Born or Naturalized. Ergo, since WKA was naturalized he had to be a Natural Born Citizen but the court didn’t rule such.) SCOTUS ruled that WKA was a Citizen at Birth which the court agreed is functionally equailvalent to an NBC. The court couldn’t rule WKA an NBC because he didn’t have 2 citizen parents. In fact, In Ankeny Vs. Daniels where the court did rule Obama was a NBC, the point that WKA wasn’t ruled a NBC was made. The court essentially ignored it and proceeded with their decision.

    I will agree that courts have basically said the a Citizen at Birth and “Natural Born Citizen” are functionally equivalent (Meaning the operation of citizenship decends from the same source that being birth) however, the US Constitution says that only Natural Born Citizens can be POTUS for which an NBC is one born to citizen parents but a citizen at birth is the same in rights to that of an NBC (Except for the Presidency)

  82. Jim says:

    Jim Youngblood says: “however, the US Constitution says that only Natural Born Citizens can be POTUS for which an NBC is one born to citizen parents but a citizen at birth is the same in rights to that of an NBC (Except for the Presidency)”

    Sorry Jim, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. You are not a founder and do not get tol rewrite the Constitution.

  83. Jason Swenson says:

    Mr. Youngblood, a correction and two questions.

    It is not Obama supporters who say that there only two kinds of citizens, it was the Supreme Court.

    Question 1. If WKA was not running for President, why would the Supreme Court need to declare him NBC?

    Question 2. Where did your quote come from? Was it a case or a brief from a failed birther case?

  84. You guys beat me to it but there was also this gem in James’ comment:

    You only have to be born in this country to be an NBC…ergo the SCOTUS should have ruled WKA a “Natural Born Citizen”, but they didn’t. (Remember, according to Obots, there are only 2 citizens, Natural Born or Naturalized. Ergo, since WKA was naturalized he had to be a Natural Born Citizen but the court didn’t rule such.) SCOTUS ruled that WKA was a Citizen at Birth which the court agreed is functionally equailvalent to an NBC.

    Disregarding that you contradicted yourself within the same sentence and can neither spell nor understand the meaning of “equivalent” you said WKA was naturalized. Where did you get that? Gray said the courts had already ruled he could not be naturalized because Congress forbade it.

    As Jason said it is the courts who are saying that anyone born a citizen is eligible to become president if they also meet the age and residency requirements. I will list the cases where the courts have ruled otherwise for you. Here they are

    “”

    I put them between the quotes for you to make it easy for you to see them.

    Of course the Constitution doesn’t say anything like you think it does. Ballantine put together a great list of books, articles and other sources that say anyone who is born a citizen is eligible.

    BOOKS ON GOOGLE BOOKS THAT DEFINE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

    I think I counted one time and there are over 300 references in that list. Several Birthers have claimed they learned in Civics classes that you had to have to citizen parents to be president. They promised to produce their books. They never did. It is over James; you are wrong. It is time to move on with your life.

  85. ramboike says:

    Jason says I ignored the express language of WKA, where court stated that there are only two kinds of citizen.

    This is not true. It is because of Gray’s opinion that led to my belief there are more than 1 type of born citizenships. Gray did not say there were only 2 kinds of citizens – that’s Jason’s words. Gray also didn’t say “Literally the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that WKA was a NBC because there are only two forms of citizenship and he could not be naturalized” – again, that’s Jason’s words.

    What Gray did say regarding the 14th Amendment: “The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only, -birth and naturalization.”

    “Contemplates 2 sources of citizenship”: birth & naturalization. Notice Gray didn’t say: “natural born citizen & naturalization”. Gray didn’t close it out by saying “natural born citizen” thus leaving it open that there are more than 1 citizenship by birth.

    Jason errors by trying to equate the terms “kinds” & “forms” with “sources”. They are not synonymous.

    As Gray states in his closing: The single question for the court to determine was: Did Kim Ark become at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. The court wasn’t tasked with determining if Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

  86. Jason Swenson says:

    Kindly ad vise why the Sureme court has routinely said that native born and natural born citizens are the same thing?

  87. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    In over 200 years I’ve never found where the SCOTUS has ever applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

    This is why I like to call it “The Amazing Shrinking Birther Argument.” Inevitably, the rest of the smokescreen gets blow away to reveal at its core this single pathetic quibble.

    Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got it. The three judge Ankeny panel got it. Every subsequent court gets it. I get it.

    Again I ask, Ike. What’s your excuse?

  88. point3r says:

    @ ramboike

    It has been a week since I first asked yas to bring the ruling that showed the SCOTUS ruled Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.

    And it has been an equal amount of time since you were pointed again (and from which you ran away again) to the ratio decidendi that declares all children of aliens born on US soil (with the exception of children of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation) to be natural born citizens. Wong was one of those children.

    Pretending it’s not there doesn’t make it magically go away Ike.

    Now RC moves the goal posts by saying SCOTUS only recognized 2 classes of citizens. Jim clears up what RC meant by defining 2 classes of citizens as “may be born or they may be created by naturalization”.

    No goal post was moved there, Ike. He is simply trying to hold your hand as you cross the logical street. It is fascinating to see how terrified you are to even step off the curb,

    In my research I’ve found there to be 3 classifications of citizenship. The 1st one has expired. It was a granted citizenship to those born prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Another was Naturalization. A 3rd class is Jim’s born citizen that had more than 1 type of which natural born citizen would be one of them.

    You have ham handedly avoided the question, Ike. You claim to have found 3, but then you list at least four. Certainly you are not so innumerate as to be unable to count higher than 3. Are you?

    Here’s where logic has to come into play. If Kim Ark couldn’t be naturalized, and no proof has been provided by the Obots of a natural born citizen ruling for Kim Ark by the SCOTUS then there has to be another type under the born citizen classification.

    You need a serious remedial course in logic. Even if we were to assume arguendo that “no proof has been provided by the Obots of a natural born citizen ruling for Kim Ark by the SCOTUS,” that would still not logically suggest another type of born citizen. It would at best leave the question open.

    You need to learn to think harder.

  89. I have seen this argument play out before. At some point Birthers run up against the plain logic of Gray’s decision and then it comes down to the fact that they cannot accept it for one simple reason. It would mean the scary black guy in the White House is most eligible to hold office and always was. That is why they start making the silly arguments that James and Rambo are making.

    At this point I would say if you don’t like it take it up with all the judges who made the decisions I listed in my previous comment.

  90. point3r says:

    @ Jim Youngblood

    Yes, all of these cases were based ultimately on the WKA case, a SCOTUS case where WKA was never ruled an Natural Born Citizen even though according to the Obots, You only have to be born in this country to be an NBC…ergo the SCOTUS should have ruled WKA a “Natural Born Citizen”, but they didn’t.

    Again, Gray provided the definition of natural born citizen in the WKA decision that remains the only definition in any Supreme Court decision that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court. To wit: Any child born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen. With that definition the court did in fact declare Wong to be NBC. There is no amount of birther rhetorical contortionism that can escape that fact. Certainly it did not escape the understanding of either the dissenting judge or the losing attorney.

    The court couldn’t rule WKA an NBC because he didn’t have 2 citizen parents. In fact, In Ankeny Vs. Daniels where the court did rule Obama was a NBC, the point that WKA wasn’t ruled a NBC was made. The court essentially ignored it and proceeded with their decision.

    How ironic is it that you reject the claim that Wong is NBC because “Gray never said that” and then feel free to turn around and assert that “The court couldn’t rule WKA an NBC because he didn’t have 2 citizen parents” even though Gray also never said that? I mean such profound hypocrisy in the content of a single paragraph of a single post cannot be completely an accident.

    The sad fact for you is that the Ankeny court absolutely did not ignore it. Knowing full well exactly the argument you are making here, they actually pointed to it, called it out explicitly, and explained why your argument fails. It fails because the failure by the Gray court to explicitly call Wong an NBC is “immaterial” to the simple fact that the decision established Wong to be exactly that.

    Remember, the Minor court never called Virginia Minor an NBC either. Birther arguments derived therefrom depend not on what the court called her, but on a definition that they offered elsewhere in the decision. The birther argument fails because the Minor definition is not exclusive, and does not contradict the more inclusive definition set forth in the Wong decision. The Obot argument does not only not fail, it has been verified as the correct understanding by a significant number of subsequent courts. No subsequent court has ever agreed with the birthers.

    I will agree that courts have basically said the a Citizen at Birth and “Natural Born Citizen” are functionally equivalent (Meaning the operation of citizenship decends from the same source that being birth) however, the US Constitution says that only Natural Born Citizens can be POTUS for which an NBC is one born to citizen parents but a citizen at birth is the same in rights to that of an NBC (Except for the Presidency)

    You contradict yourself. If a “Citizen at Birth” and “natural Born Citizen” are (as you explicitly admit) functionally equivalent, then eligibility for the presidency must be among those functions. Because if one is eligible and the other is not, then they are not functionally equivalent at all.

  91. patriotwatchchicago says:

    it’s kinda of interesting that this writer didn’t address any of evidence. Not a bit

  92. patriotwatchchicago says:

    I mean the hospital on the birth record OBAMA showed the world is wrong. His fathers race is wrong. There’s something seriously wrong with you folks. This could be fifth grade research project and the kids would find something wrong with that record by the end of the day. They’re ten. LOL. There’s so much wrong with that birth record I’m embarrassed for most of you. The damn thing wasn’t even made on a typewriter.

    Been a sad six years for America. We’ll pay the price.

  93. Jason Swenson says:

    Unfortunately for you, literally nothing you said is true and there is no evidence.

  94. The hospital name on the Obama certificate is identical to other certificates from the same month for births at Kapi’olani. Don’t you research anything?

  95. Been a sad six years for America. We’ll pay the price.

    Yes, it has been a sad six years. Who would have thought in the 21st century we would have a group so openly racist that they could not stand the thought of a black person actually being the President of the United States to the point that they would file hundreds of pointless lawsuits, act openly racist on blogs, and make incredibly stupid and dishonest arguments about who is a natural born citizen?

    Fortunately most people see this group for what they are – a small fringe group who are stuck in the 1950′s.

  96. point3r says:

    @ patriotwatchchicago

    I mean the hospital on the birth record OBAMA showed the world is wrong.

    You have been misled. The hospital’s name on the birth certificate is identical to the name found on other birth certificates of children born at the same time.

    His fathers race is wrong.

    You have been misled. There is no such thing as a “wrong race” on a birth certificate, as race is self declared and there was no formal standard whatsoever to which any declarant would be required to conform. It has been documented that black Kenyans in 1961 would have recorded their race as “African” in their own census documents, Barack Obama Sr, was a black Kenyan.

    It is always a bit droll to find birthers basing their arguments on specific details, and then watch them demonstrate that they have never bothered to check to see of the details are even true. Apparently, you heard somebody say these actually very ignorant things once, and accepted them as divinely revealed. I have one small piece of advice:

    It might seem easier to be a sucker than a skeptic. But the universe is unforgiving, and willful ignorance always ends up getting crushed by what is real and what is true. Wise up before you get crushed.

    NADT

  97. patriotwatchchicago is probably used to reading Birther blogs like Birther Reports where these kinds of falsehoods are repeated over and over without being challenged. On those sites contrary information is scrubbed and banned. At least he has stepped into the real world by posting here. Now let’s see if he can defend any his claims or if it was just a drive by.

  98. Hektor says:

    I always love when birthers make claims like “this could be fifth grade research project and the kids would find something wrong with that record by the end of the day.” The Obama “regime” is apparently so omnipotent that it can prevent congressmen and senators even from the reddest of states from investigating this matter and control the outcome of over two hundred legal cases, yet is so alarmingly inept that it can’t produce a credible forgery of a birth certificate. You’d think that someone who was “in on it” would realize that “even a 10 year old could see through this.”

  99. patriotwatchchicago says:

    Well this is your typical liberal site. Twice now I’ve been called a racist. That’s hilarious. My son is three shades darker than Obama, better looking, Loves America, and has a birth certificate.

    So I’m supposed to respond to this? I get enough of you liberal idiots without beating you folks up.

    The racist thing is getting old

  100. patriotwatchchicago says:

    Hector you forgot to call me racist. You know like that LA Clippers owner the Democrat

  101. Hektor says:

    I see that patriotwatchchicago has refuted us point by point with damning evidence. Gentlemen, our evil cause has been thwarted. I hope that I can make it into exile.

  102. Why don’t try backing up your claims patriotwatchchicago? You know, like the one where you said the hospital name was wrong on Obama’s birth certificate?

  103. patriotwatchchicago says:

    What’s this “us” Hektor? You got mouse in your pocket? You haven’t said anything brother. I’m a racist according to you folks. I have no less then five letters which I received from around the world after Obama showed us his long form birth certificate that both Hawaii and Obama told us didn’t exist.

    Everybody knows this man is a fraud but liberal Americans.

  104. BTW, no one called you a racist. I maintain that the Birther movement at its core is racist however.

    I am ready to see you back up your claims. Let’s start with the hospital name.

    PS: Also, there is no proof Donald Sterling is a Democrat. He made two small contributions to Democratic candidates 12 and 25 years ago respectively.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-and-the-neverending-fantasy-of-democrat-racism.html

    You should read somewhere other than Newsmax.

  105. patriotwatchchicago says:

    Reality Check I believe you’re the loser who called me a racist. Showing you true liberal colors. So I did answer part of your dumb ass question.

    Obama is a fraud from start to finish.

  106. patriotwatchchicago says:

    I don’t play games with folks who use the race card. We have listened to that shield from liberals for six years now. Most of America is tiered of it. Don’t appreciate it and you would Never say that to my face. Never. Believe it

  107. Hektor says:

    Wow, five whole letters from a total of over seven billion people. No wonder the President is being led away in chains from the White House as we speak.

  108. roxy7655 says:

    I don’t have enough information to claim you are a racist, pwc. But I do have enough to conclude that you are extremely stupid and especially gullible. You believe baseless claims and rumors; we believe evidence. The Birfoon cause was destroyed years ago when two red-state Attorneys General requested verification of Obama’s birth records; they got official verification and were satisfied. All of Congress is satisfied. No objections were filed during Electoral College voting in 2012, even though Birfoonery had bee around for 5 years by then.

    Wake the flock up, pal. You’ve been had by wolves in sheep’s clothing.

  109. patriotwatchchicago says:

  110. patriotwatchchicgo said

    I don’t play games with folks who use the race card.

    Translation:

    You know you got caught pulling stuff out of your ass so instead of defending your misstatements of fact you are going to whine that you were called a racist when no one called you a racist.

  111. That video doesn’t provide a single shred of evidence. It is Joe Farah bloviating about something.

    I ask again pwc, where is your proof that the hospital had the wrong name on Obama’s birth certificate?

  112. It says something about conservatives that they are claiming without proof that this racist piece of shit Sterling supported Barack Obama. They are willing to lie at the drop of a hat.

  113. Jason Swenson says:

    PWC is just another example of someone who believes that one side or the other has exclusive claim to racism. There are racists and bigots in all political beliefs. PWC is also delusional enough to believe claims without any real evidence.

    PWC, first, to my knowledge, no one ever said that LFBC did not exist, other than birthers. What you were told was that the COLB was the official BC from Hawaii, and it was.

    The name of Hospital is not wrong as is proven by other BC’s issues from the same time period. This is undeniably true unless you want to expand the conspiracy to claim that those were forged as well.

    The race was not wrong. It is a birther myth. I have heard of BCs from around that time period that put a race as “yellow” and other non specific terms.

    I accept the fact that you dislike the President. You are entitled to do that. But to question his eligibility is just plain stupid. To continue with that argument 6 years later with absolutely no proof is beyond stupid.

  114. roxy7655 says:

    Hey pwc… did you know that can we prove you’re a racist slimeball based on a careful examination of your picture?

    No?

    Well, we can’t… and nobody can prove a document is a forgery based on a scan of it.

  115. patriotwatchchicago says:

    You know Obama claimed to be born in Kenya for over 16 years. Why would I believe you folks. There are several lies in this post. The first. birtherreportdotcom on youtube has asked folks for money once. My exposure to them is on youtube. So maybe they are begging for money somewhere that I am unaware of but their following and numbers is on youtube and as I have said ONCE they mentioned donations are accepted as most do on youtube. So the language in this article is misleading to say the least.

    Democrats were the first birthers. The ones with brains still are. Again, Obama said he was born in Kenya. LOL So why in GODS name would I listen to you idiots. The man himself was listed as being born in Kenya.

    There’s more.

    So I’m rolling with hope and change and what he said for years.

  116. You know Obama claimed to be born in Kenya for over 16 years.

    Wait, before we get to that lie can we agree you were lying about the hospital being wrong? I like to deal with one Birther lie at a time.

    Jesus H. Christ this is a particularly dumb one!

  117. Jason Swenson says:

    Why do birthers always resort to the “democrats were the first birthers”. Aside from the fact that it is not true, who cares? Let’s assume they were, It is obvious that they investigated the issue and were satisfied. How hard is that for you to understand?

  118. Jason Swenson says:

    Oh and patriot–here is a clue, since you cannot seem to buy one. I don’t call people racist unless they show me that they are racist. Note that I have not called you or anyone a racist. But if I thought you were one, I would say it and say it to your face. If I did see you and started spouted the bs you post on here, I would be sure to point out that you are most certainly not a patriot, but rather a seditionist. And yes, I would say it to your face, tough guy.

  119. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    How did Birther Report enter the conversation? PWC makes the only mention of it in this page, which is about Gallups and Zullo. Although it’s rather amusing that he couldn’t figure out that birtherreportdotcom might actually be the You-tube channel for birtherreport.com

  120. Maybe pwc is an escapee from BR? Over there he would be considered a genius. :lol:

  121. point3r says:

    @PWC

    You know Obama claimed to be born in Kenya for over 16 years.

    You have been misinformed. There is no evidence that Obama was even aware of that Agent’s bioblurb, yet alone that it reflected any claim on his part. There remains to this day not a single example of where anybody in a position to actually know has ever claimed Obama’s place of birth to be anyplace other than Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Why would I believe you folks.

    You mean, other than the fact that as a group we have a perfect 5 year record of predicting the results of every birther court case? That alone would have earned at least the tentative deference of any rational person.

    There are several lies in this post. The first. birtherreportdotcom on youtube has asked folks for money once. My exposure to them is on youtube. So maybe they are begging for money somewhere that I am unaware of but their following and numbers is on youtube and as I have said ONCE they mentioned donations are accepted as most do on youtube. So the language in this article is misleading to say the least.

    This article never even mentions birtherreport.com once. It mentions PPSIMMONS (on which they asked for money religiously). Comprehension counts.

    Democrats were the first birthers.

    You have been misinformed. Birthism was invented on the Free Republic Forum by right-wing conservatives. It was born early on the morning of March 1, 2008. A handful of PUMAs did pick up the meme later, but they were not the first.

    The ones with brains still are. Again, Obama said he was born in Kenya. LOL So why in GODS name would I listen to you idiots. The man himself was listed as being born in Kenya.

    In case you missed it a moment ago, you have been misinformed. There does not exist a single example of where Obama, or anyone else actually in a position to know, has ever claimed a birthplace for him other than Honolulu, Hawaii.

    There’s more.

    I’m sure there is. Sadly, as in everything else you’ve written to this point, you’ve probably been misinformed.

  122. I enjoyed our new Birther play toy pwc today. That was a fun diversion. ;)

  123. Lupin says:

    I’ve seen Vattel being mentioned up there en passant, which is sort of my cue to step in.

    I’d like to address this to “ramboike” if he is still reading.

    Unlike what Mr. Apuzzo & others gave said, nowhere does Vattel state that citizenship must be transmitted by two parents who are also citizens. In fact, quite the contrary: he states that it is transmitted through the father.

    Later this amended in a footnote to the second edition to include the mother in the event of a child born out of wedlock.

    Needless to say, all European countries such as France which initially adopted Vattel’s mode of transmission of citizenship (in our case, under the Napoleonic Code) later amended it to place father and mother on equal footing.

    The single most famous legal case that is like Mr. Obama’s in France is that of the writer Emile Zola, born of an Italian father and a French mother in the 19th century. Zola acquired French citizenship only upon his majority but went on to have a brilliant political career. Obviously today he would have had that citizenship at birth because if his mother. But in both sets of circumstances, he was considered an “indigene” or a “naturel”.

    The bottom line is that Vattel does not support the so-called “two parents citizens” theory; he contradicts it.

    I would also like to ask “ramboike” because of his comments on foreign allegiances if he thinks a dual citizen could be elected President?

    Because James Madison was made a French citizen (and accepted such citizenship in writing) before he ran for President. The issue was raised during his campaign, but quickly dismissed. Therefore there seems to be no legal obstacle to your President being a dual citizen.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s