My reply to Mark Gillar’s latest silly claims


Mark Gillar is a Birther and a BlogTalk Radio host of a program called the “Tea Party Power Hour”. He also has some connection with Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse that has been  investigating President Obama’s birth certificate. Gillar has admitted to producing some videos that have been used in their presentations.

I posted a comment over at Mark Gillar’s YouTube channel the other day. Gillar suppressed the comment but replied via a PM. He challenged me to refute his latest stupid claim that the long form birth certificate posted on the White House web site is a fake. After exchanging a few messages with him I thought it was appropriate to reply publically via this blog post. Gillar has apparently now joined most of the other Birther blogs and is moderating (censoring) all comments. I think a few comments made by my RC Radio cohost Dr. Ken may have driven him to censorship. Here is my response to Mr. Gillar.


Pardon me if I do not waste even a few minutes debunking your stupid “clipping masks don’t hide things” and “Illustrator gives an error when you open a pdf with MRC compression” arguments because I have been at this for four years and I have seen every argument made by the Birthers crumble to dust. Then they always come up with something new. Birthers never explain or admit that the other 99 that got blown away. You are no different.

Let’s just look at a very brief list of myths and debunked assertions that is by far not complete:

Birthers: Obama’s middle name was Mohammed and he was born in Kenya.

Reality: He published a scan of his Birth certificate showing when and where he was born and that his middle name really was Hussein.

Birthers: It doesn’t have a seal and the number is blacked out.

Reality: The certificate was made available. handled and published hi-res photographs that showed clearly the seal and the certificate number.

Birthers: There is no independent confirmation that he was born in Hawaii.

Reality: Both local newspapers carried announcements of the birth the same month. One of his teachers specifically remembers talking to the head of the department at Kapi’olani the night of his birth.

Birthers: But the name of the hospital is wrong. It wasn’t called that in 1961.

Reality: The Nordyke twins birth certificates issued the same week have the identical name for the hospital.

Birthers: But Obama’s certificate number should be lower that the Nordyke twins certificate numbers since he was born the day before.

Reality: Several other certificates from the same month are made public from August 1961 that are not in chronological order.

Birthers: Registrar Charles Bennett wrote an article in 1955 about Hawaii’s vital statistics system and said that certificates are numbered as soon as they are received.

Reality: The article doesn’t even mention certificate numbers.

Birthers: You couldn’t even play in the Little League using a short form from Hawaii.

Reality: Since 2001 at the latest the short form has been the only certificate issued. The Hawaii Little League team played in the World Series recently. They didn’t need “long forms”. Folks from Hawaii have obtained drivers’ licenses and passports with them without a problem.

Birthers: Obama could not have traveled to Pakistan in the early 1980’s on a US passport.

Reality: There was no US travel ban to Pakistan. All that was required is a US passport and a visa.

Birthers: Obama has spent millions to seal his records.

Reality: He has spent very little. The Birther “millions” claim is derived from the total expenses spent by the Obama 2008 campaign on all legal matters. The total on the FEC report was $1.7 million. The McCain – Palin Campaign also spent a similar amount for legal services. The actual legal expenses spent defending in Birther cases is much less than that according to estimates made by attorneys and probably under $20,000. In most cases US Attorneys have filed the necessary responses for the President as they are supposed to do under the law.

Birthers: The Chief Elections Clerk in Honolulu said he was told that Obama’s long form did not exist.

Reality: Tim Adams was not the Chief Elections Clerk. He was a temporary worker in Honolulu during the 2008 election period. He had no access to birth records. He would not name the person he claims him that “the birth certificate doesn’t exist”. His boss directly refuted his claims. Adams made the claim while appearing on a white supremacist radio show.

Birthers: Governor Abercrombe said “ we looked for the birth certificate and it is not there”.

Reality: Gov. Abercrombie never said that. The quote came from a radio personality who knew the Gov. but admitted he never heard that from Abercrombie.

On Minnesota’s KQRS-FM radio Jan. 20, Hollywood reporter Mike Evans, claiming to be a longtime friend of Abercrombie’s, said the governor had told him that he had searched “everywhere” at Hawaii hospitals and that “there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii.”

The same day, Evans made the claim on Austin’s KLBJ-AM.

Six days later, though, quoted Evans as saying that he had misspoken. According to, Evans said that he called Abercrombie’s office after reading online reports that the governor couldn’t find Obama’s birth certificate but that Abercrombie did not return his call. “I haven’t talked to Neil since he’s been governor,” Evans said.

Birthers: Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya.

Reality: She said on tape that he was born in Hawaii.

Birthers: Obama lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia because he was adopted.

Reality: He was not adopted and could not have given up his US citizenship as a child regardless.

Birthers: If President Obama would only spend $10 and show a copy of his LFBC this would all be over.

Reality: :LOL: Do I really need to say anything? The Birther “experts” started crawling out of the woodwork the same day it was released shouting “It’s a forgery!”

Birthers: The LFBC is a forgery because it has layers.

Reality: Compression algorithms work by assembling like elements such as text in one layer and graphics in others. Author John Woodman found hundreds of Google Books documents with similar layers.

Birthers: Paul Irey and others claim it is a forgery because there is “kerning”, multiple typefaces, and that the letters do not follow the curve of the paper.

Reality: Irey is a conspiracy nut with no experience in document analysis. Most of his so-called anomalies are the result of trying to blow up letters far beyond what the image resolution would warrant.  See John Woodman’s book and blog for details. Investigating the Obama Birth Mysteries

Birthers: Dozens of experts say the document is a forgery.

Reality: No real expert has said any such thing. WND hired two certified document examiners and neither of them supported the forgery claims. None of the Birther “experts” have ever been admitted as an expert witness in any legal proceeding where they had to go through a voir dire process.*

Birthers: The race of Barack Obama’s father is shown as “African” on the birth certificate, but next to that is a penciled number “9” that indicates “not stated.” The code is wrong, proving that the form is a fake.

Reality: The Cold Case Posse presentation used the wrong codes. The “9” code in 1961 was for “other non-white”, which is correct for the senior Obama. The CCP either was being deceptive (lying) or were themselves duped by The Daily Pen blog, who made the same “mistake”. The Daily Pen article had been debunked by Kevin Davidson months earlier when the CCP made the same claim.

Birthers: The Cold Case Posse is only out to find the truth is just following evidence where it leads them.

Reality: (See the previous item) John Woodman, who spent hundreds of hours analyzing claims about the LFBC and forgery and even wrote a book about it, offered twice to come and meet with the CCP. They refused but instead relied on characters like Jerome Corsi who has been making money on the Birther movement for years and who has been caught lying several times, and Mara Zebest who claimed the photos of the White House situation room taken during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden were doctored to add the President’s image. She claimed he really was not there.

Birthers: Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he was not born in Hawaii because a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents.

Reality: No recognized Constitutional scholar supports this view. The Congressional Research Service published a lengthy report on the subject and disagrees. The courts, beginning with an Indiana case in 2009 have ruled against this view. The fact is that anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.

Birthers (Actually this is a new one from Gillar himself): Barack Obama worked for Baskin -Robbins in 1974 but did not get a social security number until 1977.

Reality: Obama would have been 12 years old at the beginning of the summer in 1974. Baskin-Robins was hiring them very young back then. 😆

I am adding this one because I found it is not the first time a Birther used the Savannah Guthrie photo in a forgery claim:

Birthers: The  word “Hawaii” is spelled ” Huwaii” in the Savannah Guthrie photo and this proves Guthrie is in on the conspiracy.

Reality: This is more shoddy work from Cold Case Posse “expert” Mara Zebest. Zebest’s original article is here and John Woodman’s debunking of this idiocy is here. John Woodman posted a copy of the Guthrie image in the original size but cropped to show only the relevant portion:

This is what Zebest used for her cracker jack analysis. Woodman enlarged the image without using the smoothing effects that graphics programs use for readability and looked at the 12 pixels that comprise both of the “a”‘s in “Hawaii and this is what you get:

You can read John Woodman’s article for the details on what Zebest did wrong in her amateurish analysis.

As I said this is a very abbreviated list. Please fell free to add more in the comments.

So what is Gillar’s latest claim that we are now supposed to debunk after those first 100 didn’t pan out? Well just watch this video Gillar made outlining his stupendous find:]

Now I could make one or two snide remarks about the production value and how Gillar is literally (and figuratively) out of focus in the video but I will not. When I watched this video all I can say is WTF is he talking about? Is this supposed to be the smoking gun? Really? Are you freakin’ serious? That’s it? After the opening music I was expecting more. I got nothing. In the video Gillar said at the 4 minute mark that he had “computer experts look into it [the smudges] and they match the color range of the pencil marks on the document”. I wonder if those “computer experts” might just be Mara Zebest (of the doctored situation room photo claim and who couldn’t get Corsi’s computer to work with a projector at a news conference) and one Garrett Papit who got trounced in comments at John Woodman’s blog when he tried to claim to be an expert on Mixed Raster Content (MRC) compression and got his clock cleaned? We do not know since Mark didn’t bother to name them.

I guess Gillar has really done it. After four years, two elections, 200 court cases, and hundreds of Birther failures who knew that a smudge on the LFBC would drive Obama from office? Mark Gillar will go down in history – or not.

So Mark, when I get a few spare minutes I might actually address “The Smudge”. It would be nice though if you would just be a man and admit how many of the myths that  I listed above that you bought into and that you know now are wrong. If you did that I might be a little more inclined to look at your little smudge. I await your answer.

*[Edited 2/2: Both Doug Vogt and Paul Irey have appeared in a legal proceeding to try to sell their analyses of the LFBC. Vogt testified at David Farrar’s ballot challenge hearing in Atlanta last year. Since the Democratic Party chose not to appear his credentials were not challenged. This was an informal administrative law hearing and not a trial. Judge Malihi in ruling against Farrar said “The Court finds testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.” He went on to say “the unqualified testimony of the witness [is] not competent evidence.”  Paul Irey took the stand in a state case filed by Taitz in Indiana. Judge Sherry Reid allowed Paul Irey to testify in a rather bizarre hearing over the objections of the Indiana Deputy AG. Reid then ruled against Taitz and struck all the testimony given by Irey from the record.]

This entry was posted in Birth Certificate, Birthers, Jerome Corsi, RC Radio and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to My reply to Mark Gillar’s latest silly claims

  1. Dr. Ken says:

    His claims about a smudge and the inner workings of a PDF are ridiculous. The state of Hawaii says he was born there. They verified the information contained on the PDF matches what they have in their file. That’s all that matters. Complaining by Mark Gillar doesn’t change that.

    • Dr. Ken says:

      His over dramatization of how could it be a smudge on the pdf and not on the Suvannah Guthrie picture is funny. Mark doesn’t use common sense at all and instead goes conspiratorial. How could it be there’s a smudge on the white house pdf and not on the picture Savannah Guthrie took? Well what exactly was different?

      The white house PDF was scanned in the smudge could be anything from artifact created during the scanning process to dirt being on the glass of the scanner. I scanned my own BC recently and used the scanner’s built in high compression setting as well as the dust removal and optimization tool. It created some bits of artifact that don’t appear on the paper document.

      • Joe Mama says:

        When it comes to conspiracy theorists, it doesn’t matter if it makes sense or not, or even if it proves anything. All that matters to them is that the two images are different, and that’s enough to prove a massive conspiracy to them. They think that if they can raise questions about something, then it’s conclusive proof that they are right.

  2. JRC says:

    Excellent article RC. It’s really amazing just how many debunked theories that the birthers have had. And this is the short list. .

    • I plan to add to this as a think of items. I added the one about Mara Zebest and “Huwaii” on the Guthrie photo yesterday. I think Zebest, Tom Harrison, and Garrett Papit are the “experts” that are working with the CCP and that Gillar keeps referencing. There may be one more, Dr. Ken and I were trying to come up with his name yesterday.

      Zebest is just an idiot. All you have to do is look at her analysis of the Guthrie photo with her claim about the spelling of “Huwaii” and her claim that the photos taken in the WH situation room during the Bin Laden raid were doctored to add Obama.

      Garrett Papit made an appearance at John Woodman’s blog to defend his work and got smoked on claims about MRC compression fairly quickly. I haven’t heard much from Harrison lately.

  3. MsDaisy says:

    Very nice RC! But you may as well be talking to a brick wall. Geller is just another waste of time birfer zombie for which there is no hope.

  4. norm says:

    The founding fathers had many discussions on naturalization and citizenship. They established that in order to be president, you must be of two legal parents. Not one, thus a dual allegience would cause problems. Obama is not qualified. It’s very simple.

    • Norm

      I am sorry but that is not correct. There was no discussion as to the meaning when the clause requiring that the president be a natural born citizen into the Constitution because the founders were well acquainted with the definition from English common law. Anyone born a citizen is natural born.

      There is a good discussion ongoing about this at Obama Conspiracy Theories blog that you might want to check out. Pay particular attention to the quote from James Madison that is mentioned there:

      It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

      I will check out the show you linked.

    • If you believe this to be true, that you must have two citizen parents when you are born in the U.S. to be considered a natural born citizen, then that would mean that Taitz’s sons or at least the older two are naturalized citizens. Have her post their paperwork and tell us when they went through the naturalization process, please. I’ve asked her repeatedly about this but she ignores the question and won’t let it through moderation on her website. Why is that? Because she knows damn well that they are considered natural born citizens!

    • Joe Mama says:

      Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says that someone born on foreign soil must have two American citizen parents in order to be considered a natural-born citizen.

      It doesn’t matter what anybody claims the founding fathers said or wanted, all that matters is what the Constitution says as a matter of law.

    • Northland10 says:

      Your conservapedia article link starts out with:

      Natural-born citizen as a term of usage in the United States, evidently comes from the writings of Emmerich de Vatell (1714-1767),[Who says?] a Swiss philosopher and legal scholar who laid the foundations and concepts of modern law.

      The “Who Says?” is an insert to the article as there no citation that the term came from the claimed source. This is especially important since the later quote is from an translation made later than the Constitution. As RC comments above, go look at Dr. Conspiracy’s site. I would also recommend John Woodman who did a wonderful 7 part series on the historical evolution of the term, Natural Born Citizen.

      • Joe Mama says:

        Andy Schlafly has actually said that citations aren’t needed on Conservapedia for things he says are “self-evident truths.” So in other words, if Andy puts it on his website you’re supposed to take his word for it that it is correct.

      • norm says:

        Feel free to read the original naturalization act of 1790 and even 1795, that will explain why I’m correct.

        • Northland10 says:

          1790 Act:

          And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

          1795 Act:

          and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:

          The key words are born “out of the limits” of the United States. It makes absolutely no mention of those born in the United States. This is likely because these are acts of naturalization and those born in the United States, without regard to parentage are do not need to be naturalized. They are natural born citizens, just like the President.

          Free free to read the entire act and you will see why you are not correct.

        • Mario Apuzzo has made the same ineffective argument that the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 somehow define the need for two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. John Woodman effectively refuted the claims as has Northlan10 here. I quote John Woodman’s blog:

          Mario Apuzzo has made the claim that these Naturalization Acts “abrogated” American rules on the citizenship status of children born on US soil to non-citizen parents.

          However, a law doesn’t “abrogate” (or nullify) a matter which it does not address.

          If Congress passes a law providing a tax break for Americans residing overseas, that doesn’t affect the tax rates of Americans who live in America.

          Likewise, these laws — which addressed the citizenship status of foreigners who wanted to become naturalized US citizens and of children born to US citizens abroad — did not address the citizenship status of any person born in the United States.

    • That Conservapedia article on Natural Born Citizen is pure unsourced speculation and wouldn’t last 5 minutes on Wikipedia.

    • Joe Mama says:

      Using Conservapedia as a reference = automatic fail. We’ve been making fun of Andy Schlafly’s ridiculous comments on for years.

    • COMALite J says:

      Conservapedia? Really? You trust the word of people who claim to be Christian yet are making their own Bible because the existing Holy Bible, the Word of God, is too liberal for their tastes!?

    • Doug Gibbs is completely wrong about the definition of natural born citizen. He cites the usual Birther two parent citizen nonsense, de Vattel and Minor v Happersett. He ignores what the courts have ruled. He is wrong on almost everything else in his series of “Myths about the Constitution” too.

      • norm says:

        The courts have ruled? The courts, argued in Madison’s Notes, were to give “opinion”, not rulings. Nonsense? Because you say it is? You libs think because you say “nonsense”. “Law of Nations” is cited in the Constitution. You’re wrong. BOTH parents must be legal citizens in order for the child to be legal. You need a “reality check”.

  5. norm says:

    And since you disagree with Douglas v. gibbs “myths” please provide a counter argument. You given no examples. I suspect you’re a bit challenged in this area. Simply saying “nonsense” doesn’t validate your opinion.

    • It is really very simple:

      The court said that there are two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
      The lower court ruled Wong was a citizen and an NBC. He could not be naturalized by law.
      The Supreme Court affirmed that decision.


      • norm says:

        I don’t give a damn about the courts opinion. The Constitution also says there’s a difference between both. You’re losing this discussion. The Naturalization acts of 1790 and 1795 confirm You’re wrong. Again, provide a counter argument that Doug Gibbs is wrong. Just saying so means nothing. In Madisons Notes it was mentioned that The courts were ONLY TO BE CALLED UPON TO GIVE AN OPINION.

        • OK, if you don’t care what the courts have ruled then go ahead and continue to flap your gums and I will continue to support President Obama as he completes his second term. Last time I checked 1898 was after 1795. Besides that Gibbs is wrong on the Naturalization Acts anyway. I will post something on that when I have time.

        • norm says:

          Again, you’ve had 2 months to refute Gibbs, and you haven’t. You can’t. I don’t care about court rulings because the Founders didn’t expect the constitution to be applied/ruled by decisions of men in robes. Their OPINIONS were acceptable. “flap your gums”? I gave you facts that you can’t refute. Obama is your president. Not mine. You don’t comprehend the original intent of the Founders, especially when it was established I was right, and you’re just simply wrong.

        • RoadScholar says:

          Those who say “Obama is not my President” are infantile traitors, and a disgrace to this great country.

    • I will give Norm credit for a new line of attack. Instead of ignoring what all the courts have said like Mario does he says the courts don’t decide Constitutional issues they just just give opinions. So then who gets to have the final word? He probably means “patriots” like him.

  6. norm says:

    Naturalization act of 1795
    Naturalization act of 1790
    Feel free to read.
    “SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States”

    • Northland10 says:

      Feel free to read with emphasis:

      “SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization,

      It does not mention the children born here. Why? Because they are already citizens.

      and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,

      Born out of the limits, not the children born here.

      I know it is probably a useless request, but try reading Wong Kim Ark? The opinion covers the development of citizenship quite thoroughly and even the dissent is aware of what the majority opinion will do (i.e. anybody born here can is NBC).

      You may not like it, but it is the law and it is the Constitution.

      • norm says:

        You libs are slow. Original intent. Naturalization act of 1790 ” Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. I don’t refer to opinions of “wong Ark”. I refer to research.

        • Northland10 says:

          So, you are saying they have to have 2 fathers?

        • Northland10 says:

          Again, nothing about children born here because you cannot naturalize a child born in this country. This is a naturalization act.

          Please find where it refers to children born in the United States.

        • norm says:

          What I’m saying is what the Act said under original intent.

        • Northland10 says:

          Original intent? Justice Scalia writing for the majority in Heller said:

          In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” . . . Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

          In the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison referred to Blackstone Commentaries thus, ” I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand — Blackstone’s Commentaries.” ( In it Blackstone states:

          The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.


          Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature.

          This is the history of the term as the framers understood it as so would the voters. This is the original intent.

          In addition, this is also research.

      • norm says:

        And by the way, you left out the continuing “Provided, that….” part.

      • norm says:

        I’m saying the father must be a legal resident/citizen of that Jursidiction

      • norm says:

        They did not want separate allegiance. Both acts verified that. You’re going to sit here and overlook the 2 acts that were passed regarding citizenship. Vatelles law of nations, mentioned in the constitution, was of common agreement and knowledge at that time. And you’re quoting a Judge, though constitutional compared to the leftists on the bench? I just got done telling you their job was to offer opinions. The courts gave themselves more power than was allowed. My info. is based off of THE NATURALIZATION ACTS under original intent. Your denial is hilarious. Obama is not qualified.

        • The Constitution does not specifically mention Vattel’s treatises. It uses the generic term Law of Nations. It is much more likely this section was taken from Blackstone’s Commentaries, which has a chapter titled “Offences against the Law of Nations“.

          Doctor Conspiracy wrote about this Birther false claim. The Law of Nations and the US Constitution

          Some have gone so far as to say that the phrase “the Law of Nations” is a reference to Emerich Vattel’s work commonly known by that name. I think most would find that silly, but let’s look closer.

          It must be a citation because it is capitalized. FALSE. Every noun in the Constitution is capitalized, so capitalization here implies no special meaning. Add to that the fact that “the” is not capitalized; a citation should read “The Law of Nations” not “the Law of Nations.”

          But it is still the title of de Vattel’s book. FALSE. The title of de Vattel’s book was Le Droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains. “The Law of Nations” isn’t even the full English title.

          But it is still the title of de Vattel’s book. FALSE. Look at the Constitution again, at the larger phrase: “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guess what? That is the title of Chapter 5 of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, the most influential legal treatise of the time. I would say that if anything, Blackstone has the stronger claim than Vattel.

        • RoadScholar says:

          Fortunately, your opinion doesn’t count. Obama is the legitimately elected, utterly Constitutionally eligible President. So sayeth Congress, so sayeth the Supreme Court, and for you to stamp your little heels and wet your diaper shouting “Is not! Is not! Is not!” is just laughable and pathetic.

        • COMALite J says:

          You know, we might be more inclined to accept your word on this if you could actually spell de Vattel’s name correctly (two “t”s,one “l”).

          That said, do realize that the translation of Emerich de Vattel’s treatise that Birthers quote from is a flawed translation that did not exist yet when the Constitution was ratified (let alone being drafted and debated by the Framers), nor would it be for another decade. The actual Swiss French original, and more competent English translations both before (including the only ones that would’ve been available to the Framers) and since that flawed one, simply do not say what the Birthers claim.

  7. norm says:

    “It is much more likely” You said???? I don’t give a damn what you think is “much more likely” Lol. What an Idiot you are. I also don’t give a damn about some “Dr. Comspiracy”. Why the hell would I care what “Dr. Conspiracy” thinks. The founders were influenced by Vattell. It was a common influence at that time. You’re wrong. Again, The naturalization laws expressed concern of a child becoming natural born IF BOTH PARENTS WERE NOT LEGAL. I HAVE GIVEN YOU LINKS, QUOTES. I HAVE QUOTED MADISONS NOTES REGARDING THE SCOTUS. YOU MORONS CAN CONTINUE KISSING OBAMA’S SORRY ASS. BY the way, you still cannot disprove Gibbs “Myths”. Infact NO LIBERAL ON YOUR BLOG CAN. YOU’VE HAD 2 MONTHS AND ARE UNABLE TO. DAMN LIBERALISM HAS RUINED THIS COUNTRY. YOU HAVE ALOT TO LEARN, BLOG-GUY.
    ROADSCHOLAR- My “opinion doesn’t count”? DUMB ASS, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE COURTS WERE CALLED FORWARD FOR!!!!!!!!! TO GIVE THEIR OPINION!!!!! YOU SIT HERE AND ARROGANTLY TYPE AMBIGUITIES, DENYING FACTS. Your president is ILLEGAL. The Constitution is not a document that concerns you. You laugh at it. You mock it, yet you think you comprehend it. You don’t. I’m done on this pathetic “blog”. Obama’s unqualified. Accept it. He will never be a President. He’s stepped on many amendments. He doesn’t salute the flag. stepped on Articles in the constitution, and you libs bow to him. And to suggest I’m pathetic because I offer facts and links, and neither of you, NEITHER OF YOU OFFER ANYTHING EXCEPT “DR. CONSPIRACY” IS GENUINELY PATHETIC AND A DISCDREDIT AND DISSERVICE TO ANYONE WHO READS THIS BLOG WITH SUPPORT OF IT.

    • RoadScholar says:

      Awww… how cute. Norm throws a hissy fit. Too bad, pal. We win, you lose…. because nobody who counts will ever buy your flimsy horseguano “original intent” theories. Every Court agrees with us, and every Court decision says you’re wrong.

      To wit:

      “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.”
      Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678

      We have all the concrete evidence, and you have nothing. You dishonor yourself by claiming to know more than every judge in the land. But honor isn’t real important to you is it? As long as you can play monkey-in-the-zoo and fling poo at your betters, it’s all good.

    • Norm is suffering from a severe case of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). My prescription is that he should go cold turkey on hate sites like Faux News, Wild Nut Daily, American Stinker, and NewsMin. I am afraid he may be beyond help however. I have news for Norm. President Obama is his President too. If he can’t accept that he is not a true believer in the Constitution. Most Birthers are not.

    • Norm

      Before you leave could you please answer one question? And be honest. Had you ever even heard of Emer de Vattel before November 2008?

      • Northland10 says:

        I would enjoy hearing the answer, as well.

      • COMALite J says:

        Given that he has at least twice misspelled de Vattel’s name in his posts here (and not in simple typo ways — nor is he a poor speller in general as would be expected from, say, a dyslexic, or one for whom English is not his first language, since he has no problem spelling difficult words such as “separate,” “constitutional,” “naturalization,” “amendments,” “comprehend,” .etc.), I’m a-gonna assume that that’s a No.

        But norm, please, if you can show any post from you personally on any forum that dates its posts and does not permit posters to edit them after the fact, showing you personally even mentioning de Vattel prior to the very last day of February of 2008 (when the very first appearance anywhere on the Internet of what would come to be known as “Birtherism” was posted [as an hypothetical scenario posted as an analogy on an article on McCain’s eligibility on The Volokh Conspiracy blog]), please link it here.

  8. NBC says:


    I see, you are confusing opinion with non-binding rather than with the more commonly accepted term ‘ruling’. Madison was a proponent to allow the courts a judicial veto power over legislation.

    In his correspondence to Monroe, he observed

    These considerations remind me of the attempts in the Convention to vest in the Judiciary Department a qualified negative on Legislative bill. Such a control restricted to Constitutional points besides giving greater stability and system to the rules of expounding the Instrument would have precluded the question of a judiciary annulment of Legislative acts

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