No Birther is Willing to Debate the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

Several weeks ago I posted on this blog and announced on my show that I would offer a full 90 minutes on RC Radio to anyone who wanted to debate the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”. I received three offers to debate the side that anyone who is native born as defined by the Wong Kim Ark decision is a natural born citizen. Those were Steven Feinstein (owner of Orly’s World Facebook group), Patrick Colliano (owner of the Birthers are Liars Facebook group), and Frank Arduini (previous guest and well known anti-birther). No Birther is willing to challenge this group. I posted the challenge on The Fogbow,  Mario Apuzzo’s blog, Leo Donfrio’s Blog (he never even let my comment out of moderation), and Doctor Conspiracy’s blog among others. I also contacted Dean Haskins. He never replied.  Not one single Birther is man or woman enough to defend their theories. Just this week I asked Scott Erlandson ( if he wanted to take the challenge. He declined but said he would come on the show in a month to debate Frank Arduini on all Birther topics. I made that offer to Mr. Arduini and he accepted.

So it appears that the Birther champions like Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo are comfortable hiding behind their blogs and are not willing to appear on a level playing field of a moderated debate. The show will go on, however. The show tonight will not be a debate.Instead, the participants will review the cases cited by the Birthers and explain what they really mean and why Minor v Happersett is not the defining case in this area and why the term natural born citizen as used in Article II had nothing to do with de Vattel’s treatise.

We will also preview the ballot challenge hearing tomorrow in Atlanta, Georgia on RC Radio at 8:30 PM EST/5:30 PM PST.

This entry was posted in Birthers, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Natural Born Citizenship. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to No Birther is Willing to Debate the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

  1. It was a great show. Thanks to the participants, Frank Arduini, Patrick Colliano, and Captain Jack for their time and insights. I can see why no Birther dared take on these guys.

  2. MichaelN says:

    There’s nothing to debate, the meaning of “natural born Citizen in the context of the USC Article II is right there before your eyes.

    I will help you see, since you have political bias blocking your view.

    “Natural born citizen” was used in the First Naturalization Act of 1790, very shortly after the US Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789.

    In the act of 1790, “natural born” was the term used to describe a child born OUT of the limits of the US, to US citizen parents.

    Said child was NOT native born.

    “Natural born” was therefore used to describe natural descent and had NOTHING to do with native birth.

    Some of the sitting members of the US Congress and US Senate who drafted and enacted the first naturalization Act of 1790 were the very same people who took part in the establishment of the US Constitution, where in Article II the term “natural born Citizen” was used as a term to describe the required qualities of a citizen, for such a citizen to be eligible for the highest executive office of the unprecedented new found constitutional republic.

    In the period surrounding the framing of the US Constitution, and particularly ensuring protection and security for the executives in the new government, there was an imperative, an obligation and a duty to ensure that foreign influence, loyalty, allegiance and claim would not effect the representatives in the new government of the US.

    In meeting with this imperative, the framers of the US Constitution naturally sought to ensure that only those citizens of the highest possible and most absolute loyalty, allegiance, dedication and connect to the new republic of the US were to be eligible for the office of POTUS and commander in chief of the armed forces.

    It is naturally obvious that both parental connect, combined with native connect to the nation would be the most preferred qualities for one to have the best potential to guard from any foreign influence, loyalty, allegiance and claim.

    There is no reasonable doubt that the term “natural born Citizen” adopted by the framers in Article II of the US Constitution meant by natural descent AND by native birth.

    In light of the term “natural born citizen” in the first naturalization Act of 1790, being used to describe one born NON-NATIVE and solely referring to DESCENT, it is therefore impossible for the term to mean or refer to native solely with the exclusion of descent from parents.

    The exclusion of the wording “natural born” in the superseding Naturalization Act of 1795, left the child born off-shore to US citizen parents described as a “citizen”, but the principle of DESCENT was maintained.

    Why would the US Congress and the Senate, (made up of some members who were involved with the establishment of the US Constitution) make such a change between the two acts in terminology, but not in principle?

    The only possible explanation can be is that the US Congress and the US Senate realized that “natural born” being by descent, was one’s state of being and a “natural born” could not be made by any statute. Also, the use of the term lowered the high standard already set in the Article II eligibility criteria for POTUS because it excluded native birth.

    So rightly, “natural born” was dropped from the naturalization acts, to reserve it’s meaning to be all inclusive of BOTH natural descent AND native birth.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE for “natural born”, in the context of Article II of the US Constitution, to mean solely native born without regard to natural descent.

  3. MichaelN says:

    Time to WAKE UP! people.
    You have a problem in your White House, better that your energy is spent putting the house back in order.
    Maybe Billiary should be your option, at least she is eligible for office.

  4. Paul (Betsy Smith) says:

    All of the cases presented were brought to court in order to argue if certain individuals were considered citizens under the circumstances described and therefore deserving of the same rights as those whose citizenship had never been disputed, “natural born” citizens. In our country, once citizenship has been established, no privileges of citizenship are withheld. There is no legal distinction drawn between the different qualifications of citizenship.
    There has been no case brought to court to determine whether someone born in the United States of citizens of the United States would have the full privileges of “natural born” citizens under the law. Why would there be? Under what circumstances would any persons’ rights as citizens be denied or challenged when they meet every interpretation of the term “citizen?”
    But they do meet the unique eligibility of a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. They have allegiance to one country and one country only. They have allegiance to the land in which they were born and to country that has the indisputable legal jurisdiction over their parents.
    As the Commander in Chief of our Armed Services, it makes sense that the founders would recognize the necessity of insuring that our President would have the best interests of the United States and its citizens at heart when wielding such great power over us.

  5. Sorry Paul, Betsy, or whomever, the courts have said otherwise.

  6. And get used to it. The Republicans have considered running Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. Both parties will probably continue to run people who don’t meet your bogus definition. The bogosity is evident in the fact that you would like any rule that disqualifies Obama, but are utterly unconcerned if the same rule would disqualify a Republican. Don’t bother to deny it. Birtherism is 100% Obama Derangement Disorder.

  7. Hektor says:

    This is what the birthers have been reduced to. Posting drive-by comments on two and a half year old blog posts.

  8. Pretty much Hektor. I trashed a couple particularly vile and threatening comments I got over the weekend.

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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s