Educating Butterdezillion–But There Is Only So Much Education She Can Stand

Our friend Historian Dude threw caution to the wind and ventured over to Freeper Butterdezillion’s blog in a valiant attempt to educate poor delusional Nellie on how the Xerox theory explains the so-called “anomalies” in the Obama LFBC PDF.

Well Butter is having none of it. She has so climbed so deep down her conspiracy rat hole that it is impossible for her to recognize that the Xerox evidence provides a simple explanation for the structure of the LFBC PDF and that it can be tested in a repeatable, falsifiable way using instructions that both NBC and I have provided.

First Butter is all confused about the true anomalies that the German Computer Science PhD candidate David Kriesel discovered in the JBIG2 algorithm used by Xerox. She believes that the duplicated check boxes and letters in the LFBC are the same as the number swapping that Kriesel found when he scanned test documents. She is completely wrong. The duplications in the LFBC are not anomalies. They are exactly what JBIG2 compression does every time. It saves bits by storing only one copy of shapes that occur multiple times be it letters or numbers.

What Kriesel found was that on some documents with some settings, especially lower resolution scans that JBIG2 was too aggressive in finding duplicates and was changing “6”’s into “8”’s. There is no evidence that anything like that happened with the President’s LFBC. As a matter of fact we know it didn’t happen.

The Applewhite AP JPG is a photo of the handout copy of the LFBC at the press briefing on April 27,2011. The information on the AP photo agrees with the LFBC. The Xerox number swapping does not occur with copies. It only occurs with scans to compressed PDF’s. Then there is the verification letter obtained by the MDEC team of attorneys in Orly Taitz’s case against the Mississippi Democratic Party.

Butterdezillion has also trotted out a crazy theory that somehow Xerox pushed a software change out to their WorkCentre machines that somehow recreated the anomalies” Birthers had found in the LFBC and put them in their copiers for NBC and others to find and effectively submarine the fraud claims. Yes, she really suggested that. Quoting Butter:

Show me an example of this happening on any other document before April of 2011. The examples cited by NBC were all PDF’s created in 2013 – long after it was known that the layers, haloes, movable portions, and exact-to-the-pixel areas were going to need an explanation if Zullo could convince Congress members that we need an investigation.

Historian Dude then gave Butter a link to a Xerox scanned document from September 2010 that of course used JBIG2 compression.

Here you go. The PDF was created on September 1, 2010:

Butter then plays the Carl Gallups “Zullo and I know stuff that you don’t know” card.

Zullo and I both know the WH BC is a forgery because of a bunch of other evidence that you probably wish you knew, so you could fabricate things in order to explain the evidence. Other stuff would all of a sudden become observable, just like these work centres mangling images and data suddenly became observable.

HD then proceeded to educate Butter on how real research works:

Now is as good a time as any to make an observation regarding the very odd way you have of conducting an investigation. It betrays an understanding of the relationship between theories and facts that is completely backwards. In any real investigation, it is the facts that drive the theories, not the theories that drive the facts. Early on in your birthing you committed yourself to a theory of birth certificate numbering that might have made sense (as many different a mutually exclusive other theories make sense) but that no evidence in its favor. It was essentially created out of whole cloth. And then you proceeded to test that theory by looking for evidence.

It is simply true that with the exception of the Nordyke twins (which simply by chance had a 50:50 probability of supporting your theory purely by accident) not a single other Hawaiian birth certificate from August of 1961 has supported your proposed schema. Every single additional data point has directly contradicted it.
Now… when real investigators (scientists for example) are presented with the evidence that their theory is wrong they abandon or modify the theory. They do not throw out the data. You, on the other hand, cling desperately to the theory and declare the data to be fake. It is a demonstration of irrational confirmation bias rarely surpassed, even among birthers.

My impression of the HDOH is that they have acted with grace, incredible patience, and great dignity in the face of the calumnies and impositions they have been forced to face by birthers such as yourself. I do not feel that anyone could objectively justify your assertions of “illegalities” on their part, let alone expect anyone to receive with a straight face your accusations that they have been involved in a vast campaign of ad hoc forgery and falsification. They cannot tell you what want to hear for a very simply reason; what you want to hear is not true.

Barack Obama was born at Kapi‘olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. There has never been any genuine evidence otherwise.

Well that was just too much reality for poor, poor Butterdezillion. Within minutes came the end of her education:

I’m done with you. You have no idea the “elbow grease” I’ve put in on any of this stuff. Right now I am elbow deep in canning apples while working on home-schooling my son and a million other projects at home and in my church. My left elbow has tennis elbow so badly from one of my two part-time jobs that I can’t even lift a plate out of the cupboard without a lot of pain. I have put my life on hold for the past 4 years in order to present actual evidence and put it where anybody can see it. I answer questions and address a lot of bullcrap from the likes of you. If you think I am going to become a computer expert in addition to everything else I’ve got going on just to satisfy you then the only thing that exceeds your ego is your delusions.

I won’t be approving your comments from here on out. I don’t have time to go on wild goosechases of your choosing.

Home schooling? Poor kid.

This entry was posted in Birthers, Conspiracy Theories and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Educating Butterdezillion–But There Is Only So Much Education She Can Stand

  1. Hektor says:

    While I admire Historian Dude, I doubt there is anything that anyone can provide that would make Butterdezillion admit she was wrong about well anything her addled conspiracy-biased mind has cooked up since she started birthing. She believes that the President of the United States is engaged in a campaign of covert/overt assassination, has infiltrated her local police department and while officials in Hawaii are engaged in rampant illegality, they are also sending sekrit messages to her. In spite of her being aware of “the truth” all the government does is install spyware on her computer, leaving the heart attack darts for people who never were birthers like Andrew Breitbart.

    Butterdezillion has poured several years of her life into her “research.” She isn’t likely to just throw up her hands and admit she was wrong. It’s all a conspiracy after all. I doubt that even if time travel was invented and she could go back to Hawaii in 1961 that she would concede anything. She’d likely claim that the grand conspiracy created a fake alternate to try and get a great patriot such as herself to believe that the President was born in Honolulu.

  2. Of the comments Butter has refused to allow through moderation, this is the most substantive:

    At least some progress has been made. You recognize that the occurrences of the digit substitution issue are vanishingly small. That alone establishes that except for the common technology that creates that problem s well as the pixel identical characters in the Obama PDF, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion underway.

    Now… your characterization if the Verification secured by Attorney Tepper borders on complete fiction. The language is not within light years of “A is roughly equal to B.” The specific language used is unqualified and legally unassailable. It is in fact more specific and more legally rigorous than the alternative language you arbitrarily prefer. After all… the only purpose we invented birth certificates in the first place was to provide a legally official and sufficient standard for storing and authenticating the information surrounding the event of a person’s birth. Not because we wanted to someday be able to provide some family historian with a copy of great-grandma’s signature.

    “The information… matches…” is clear, unambiguous, entirely devoid of alternative interpretations other than that it is the same. It does not mean “roughly” the same. It does not mean “close enough for government work.”

    It means it is the same.

    And it’s not just matching some random unidentified document or data file. It matches “the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barrack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.” Not some “amended” birth certificate: The original.

    Now… you seem to actually acknowledge that this is true when you keep falling back to speculating that the original is “legally non-valid.” After all… if the verification is simply so much codswallop, it wouldn’t matter what any “original” document said. So in your weaker moments you seem to concede that it is the information that is important, and that the verification reflects that the information back in the vault in Hawaii is the same. In response you offer what is your real argument here; you are convinced that the document in the vault must be “legally non-valid.”

    Fine. Make that argument. Give us your evidence to support that claim. Because as you must have noticed, when you overlay it with superfluous, silly and apparently not very strongly held assertions that the Registrar of the State of Hawaii actually meant the opposite of what everyone else understands him to say, even your fellow birthers look askance.

    Butterdezillion wrrote Zullo and I both know the WH BC is a forgery because of a bunch of other evidence that you probably wish you knew, so you could fabricate things in order to explain the evidence. Other stuff would all of a sudden become observable, just like these work centres mangling images and data suddenly became observable.

    Don’t fool yourself, Nellie. Everything that you and Zullo know that is true and significant we already know. Everything that you and Zullo know that we don’t is either untrue or trivial. This has been the pattern of the birther/obot dynamic for more than 5 years now. There comes a point when even the most deluded of conspiracy theorists must take tally and at least acknowledge the disconnect between what they believe and what the real world acknowledges. We have a second term President to show for our efforts.

    What have you to show for yours?

    As to Garrett Papit’s continued participation, I can only shake my head in bemusement at Zullo’s inability to learn from his own mistakes. You’d imagine that confronted with the complete incompetence of Papit’s previous efforts he would make an effort to find somebody with a bit more gravitas; one who didn’t post videos of himself unable to make a simple scan with a Xerox.

    But you are putting words in my mouth again, and oddly words that are proven false by what I posted just a few hours previously. I am fully aware that Zullo is not ignoring us. I pointed out that Zullo and Gallups are already preparing the ground for their abandonment of what they have heretofore insisted was the very foundation of their conclusions. We all know that he is frantically trying to plug the holes in his leaky ship. But we did not merely punch holes in it. We ripped off the entire hull.

    Now… you do make a fascinating assertion, offering excuses for Zullo that he has never offered himself. You write that:

    Butterdezillion wrote: Zullo has dealt with enough attempts to derail him – some deliberate and some because of bureaucrats’ incompetence, which is what happened with the coding manual mistake. He was wrong on that but not because he lied; he had a hard deadline (the press conference) that came before it could be seen that the copy he was given by an incompetent government worker was for the wrong manual. He trusted the worker to have it right and she didn’t. He’s dropped that argument because it doesn’t hold water.

    Did Zullo tell you that? Because if he did, you are a special person. Zullo usually just sort of lies generally to the crowd. In that instance, though, he was lying directly to you. The documents that he used and showed images of in his July press conference did not come from any government worker, incompetent or otherwise. They were copied from already available online sources; sources that were explicitly identified correctly by everybody except Zullo and Gillar. We found those sources within minutes of the end of the press conference, and the online record of his exposure is extensive.

    You may have noted, your average Obot is a far superior investigator to anybody on the Cold Case Posse.

    I also note further that Zullo has certainly never publicly tried to make that pathetic excuse himself, and you seem strangely willing to accept as reliable an investigation that (were the excuse true) is quite that sloppy and amateurish.

    Finally, you still can’t resist trying to change the subject in the functional equivalent of trying to stone me to death with popcorn.

    I don’t care what’s on the birth index, as it’s just an index and not an official legal record of anything.

    I have no reason to believe that the Ah Nee certificate is anything but completely authentic.

    I have no reason to believe that the Sunahara death certificate is anything but completely authentic.

    I believe that Onaka has verified the information to be identical, because that is what “matches” means.

    • Nice job, HD.

      One of my reasons for posting this article was to provide a place to continue discussion that you had with BZ in an an open forum without moderation (after the first comment, which WordPress automatically puts into moderation to thwart spammers). Butterdezillion is invited to comment here as she would like.

      I am certian she will choose not to do that. As you said she has five years of her life invested in weaving her delusions of reality that even most of the posters at Free Repblic where she posts hundreds of posts do not buy.

      • Dr. Ken says:

        She leads a sad sorry life as it seems most birthers do. Like say Scotty who admits to being a failed musician and yet seems to mistrust and hate the government. Jon Stewart said it best that these guys often blame the government when their lives turn to shit

        • This is actually very true… but I do have to admit that Butter is not among the more mean spirited or personally despicable of the birthers, which is what inspires me to periodically actually try to help her reason through some things. Some time ago, I considered sitting down and doing an annotated Butterdezillion (“The Bizarre Backwards World of Butterdelzillion the Birther”). I ultimately chose not to because it could not avoid being so brutal as to cause to cause hurt. And while many if not most hard-core birthers are genuinely horrible human beings who deserve such treatment, Butter’s compulsions are not because she is bad, but because (I believe) she is actually ill.

          And as such, I choose to refrain from adding too much additional suffering to her life.

  3. Dr. Ken says:

    True HD. I found the same thing with Nancy Ruth Owens. When I kept her talking long enough she revealed her true motivations. Her home life is not that great and thus making up stories about the president makes her feel more important and apart of something bigger than she’ll ever be.

    • Hektor says:

      The sad thing is that this fantasy in which they become a saviour figure for the United States will eventually grind to a halt after a decade or so of exactly bupkiss. Maybe things will be “better” for Nellie or Nancy in 2017, in that perhaps a Republican may be in the White House. In that missing decade though, they could have actually made a difference in someone’s life (in many people’s lives actually) if they poured that energy into something productive instead of harassing Hawaii with crazy emails or showing up in the comments section of a random article rambling about Pablo Escobar. Sure it wouldn’t be glamorous as uncovering the greatest fraud in the history of the United States, but it might have actually made the world a better place and actually been real.

  4. @Dr Ken. You asked about my arrest photo and I told you my husband, who does not believe America is under any major threat and doesn’t see the warning signs, and I had a fight. That hardly denotes a “sad” home life. This is yet another pathetic attack belittling this situation down to a “poor little housewife with no life desperately needing attention” game. A lot of South Floridians who have been close to the Castor/Escobar Cold War are familiar with with war. We know the truth and we know who’s behind this. You don’t and therefore you do not understand. Nothing I say or do will make the majority of people, including my husband, see the truth. Oh, and as I say this Alex Jones is reporting on nukes which have disappeared and whose whistle-blowers who are now dead. Go back to sleep little puppy. We don’t need your ignorance.

    • Dr. Ken says:

      Isn’t it adorable how you come back weeks later about something we already laughed at you about? Yeah you have a pretty sad home life. Did you not know that during the show your daughter contacted us about how you were ranting on air?

      Wow look at that your husband is sane. So because your husband isn’t crazy you assaulted him. Yeah that sure makes you sound like a total stand up character. Thus you do have a sad home life which is why you lash out on air and make up stories.

      It’s your coping mechanism. You think if you interject yourself into important events that will somehow make you more important instead of just desperate. There is nothing ever connecting you to Escobar. You’ve made claims each of which you cannot prove. Wow if you rely on Alex Jones to increase your credibility level it shows how insane you actually are. It’s funny if whistleblowers are dead how come Alex Jones through all his ranting is still alive.

  5. arnash says:

    ~FANTASTY vs REALITY You folks think that you have open and analytical minds, and yet you refuse to even consider all of the possibilities that face you in the real world. You live instead in a Pollyanna world of sunshine and rainbows where no adult ever lies, especially not if they are crowned with a government job title.
    Well it’s about time you confronted the very real fact that government jobs are filled by party faithful. That is the truth, which you are well aware of, not just at the national level involving presidential appointments, but also at the State and local levels as well.
    Consequently, nothing said by any government official in Hawaii can be accepted as the God’s honest unquestionable truth because if it would hurt the President, then there isn’t a one of them who would not be willing to lie to protect him. It seems juvenile almost to have to state something so obvious, and yet you pretend that it not only isn’t obvious but that it is unthinkable! What a joke! Wake up and smell the coffee. Politics is amoral, especially Chicago politics.

    So let’s consider ALL of the other possibilities.
    1. It is a lie that “there is a real HAWAIIAN HOSPITAL certificate of live birth in the Hawaiian archive”, -which none of them have ever personally stated to be true.

    2. There IS a certificate of live birth but it is from a hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia which Ann Dunham surrendered in anticipation of receiving an Hawaiian birth certificate in its place.

    3. All that is actually in their archive is the reported “half-written and half typed” affidavit of Obama’s mother or grandparent, and it is what has been referred to as the “original vital record”.

    4. The affidavit, which may have claimed home-birth in Hawaii, whether true or false, was insufficient to generate a birth certificate because it lacked the needed corroborating evidence which was never supplied since it didn’t exist (it being unprovable that Ann lived in Hawaii for a year or that the birth was witnessed by a non-relative at her home there.)

    5. The registration via affidavit was sufficient to be included in the vital events reports sent to the local newspapers.
    6. The registration was insufficient for inclusion in the vital events records sent to the newspapers and thus the newspaper images had to be counterfeited, -with the original microfilm having been replaced with a duplicate that was otherwise identical.

    7. Barry did not need a birth certificate within the United States because of the presumption that he was born in Hawaii, (regardless of lack of proof) and to an American mother.

    8. After she married Soetoro and he adopted Barry he became an Indonesian citizen who eventually had an Indonesia passport. He used it to fly to Hawaii at age 10, he had it renewed up to and passed the age of 19 when his parents divorced, and used it to register at Occidental College, and Columbia and to obtain driver’s licenses. It has always been his main and only form of official identification.

    9. Having only an Indonesian passport as his ID, it was necessary to produce counterfeit documents in 2008 and 2011 since he could not show the birth certificate that he already had and had used all of his adult life since he did not in fact have one. Hence all the need for secrecy about his past and his papers.
    Obama lied about his mother having lived with his father for two years when they never lived together. Any one who will lie about the little things will certainly lie about the big things, and lie he did, big time! About almost everything, -but he has never yet dared to call himself a natural born citizen. He’s never lied about that because he wants that topic buried six feet under and that is accomplished by never mentioning it.
    If the possibility that Obama was born in Vancouver is true, then he would have had citizenship in four different nations. In what Bizarro world would such a person be considered to be a natural citizen of any nation?
    ~learn the truth at obama–

    • akrnc says:

      Does that mean you don’t consider Ted Cruz to be a natural born citizen of any nation, either? He was allegedly a citizen of Canada, Cuba and the U.S. at birth. It’s because of your asinine beliefs that our laws exist as they do, otherwise, we’d have people born all over the world never considered to be a citizen of any single country.
      You’re delusional. Fortunately for you, Obamacare does cover mental health care.

  6. arnash says:

    The Federalist contains a contemporary comment on NBC written by Alexander Hamilton. It reads:
    “Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” (Federalist, LXVIII.)
    “In view of the military draft proposed in 1862, on account of the Civil War, under the head of “aliens,” it was declared by the government at Washington that the following persons were exempt from draft for military service in the armies of the United States: (1) All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized; (2) All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens. (Papers relating to foreign affairs, 1862, p.283.) The very year Mr. Hughes was born, the government to which he now pays allegiance officially recognized that it had not the right to call his father to defend the flag and that it had not the right to call him to defend the flag. The government he now aspires to preside over [as President] classed him under the general head of “Aliens” the year he was born and drew a line of distinction between him and “natural born citizens”—between him and those to whom it owed protection and from whom it had a right to claim protection.”

    • Northland10 says:

      Mr. Nash, The Federalist no. 68 covers the method of election, not the qualification. It is their method they felt would prevent intrigue and foreign influence.

      The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

      Did you actually read the essay or just copy and paste?

      As for your second quote, who is the author? Is he quoting his source correctly? What is “Papers relating to foreign affairs?” You are still a “long” way off.

      • Adrien Nash says:

        You wrote: ” The Federalist no. 68 covers the method of election, not the qualification.”
        I can accept that characterization since I did obtained the quote *as* a quote. But why can’t you accept that its point applies to everything related to obtaining the office of President: “Nothing was more to be desired, than that EVERY practicable obstacle should be opposed…”?
        The eligibility clause did not include language as to how to insure it was adhered to, so the process of election was necessary as a means to insure it since it was a deceitful unqualified alien-born citizen that was to be guarded against (honestly not being a reliable means of insure compliance with true eligibility.)
        If all native-born persons were eligible, then the response actions described in the 20th Amendment would not have been focused on and written as they are written regarding a President and/or Vice President who failed to qualify. The issues of a candidates age and years of residency would be too easily ascertained and known publicly, but the issue of whether or not he was born to American citizens would not be so easily determined since the date of a father’s naturalization would be key, but that information would not be floating out there on the internet, -as was illustrated by the election of Chester Arthur.

        As for the second illuminating quote, I overlooked the lack of attribution, and don’t know where I came across it, but was able to find it on a different and amazing website:

  7. Adrien Nash says:

    In his paper, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, J. Michael Medina asks a very important question: “Who is a Natural Born Citizen?”
    In his own words, “The answer to the question above is, quite simply, we don’t know.” It’s fair enough.
    However, little by little, his opinion changes: “It was presumed that the English law of jus soli was incorporated into the law of the several former colonies and then into the Constitution. Under the law of jus soli, a person born in the United States became at birth a citizen of the United States.” And Medina also cites the Wong Kim Ark Case, which had nothing to do with the presidential eligibility clause.
    Then he comes back to the presidential eligibility requirement:
    “Professor Morse, in a ground-breaking article on the issue, defined the natural born citizen as: ‘one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.’ The definition would include the born-abroad American and clearly constitutes the better view.”

    So Medina approves the Morse’s definition of a natural born citizen which involves the child’s parents who are themselves the U.S. citizens.

    J. Michael Medina doesn’t stop there, but recalls a historical fact: “When Charles Evans Hughes ran for President, a question was raised concerning his eligibility, as Mr. Hughes was born prior to ratification of the fourteenth amendment, of foreign parents, but in the United States. One commentator contended that while Mr. Hughes was native-born, he was not natural born.”

    That commentator was BRECKINRIDGE LONG, a PROMINENT DEMOCRAT who worked for a number of years for the State Department and whom FDR appointed ambassador to Italy in 1933.
    When Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Supreme Court on June 10, 1916 to be the Republican candidate for President, Long wrote an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution?” and published in Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146-148, pp. 220-222:

    “The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.” The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought, a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “Native born” does not mean quite the same thing. He might be born in a country under conditions similar to the conditions under which Mr. Hughes was born, and subsequently become a citizen of that Country. In that case, after he became a citizen, he would be a ‘native born” citizen, but he would not have been a ‘natural born’ citizen. From the instant of his birth his government would not be solely responsible for his protection.” [11]
    Long continued:
    “It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.”

    The very year Mr. Hughes was born, the government to which he now pays allegiance officially recognized that it had not the right to call his father to defend the flag and that it had not the right to call him to defend the flag. The government he now aspires to preside over classed him under the general head of “Aliens” the year he was born and drew a line of distinction between him and “natural born citizens”—between him and those to whom it owed protection and from whom it had a right to claim protection. Is Mr. Hughes a “natural born citizen” of the United States?”

    NOTE: No one without an American father is, or ever was, a natural born member of American society.

    • I could make a case that the child of immigrant parents would have greater allegiance to the United States that someone born of parents who by accident of birth happened to be born in the US. Immigrant parents made a conscious choice to leave their country of origin and join a new society. What proof can you offer that one group of citizens at birth would be somehow less patriotic that another? Just saying it is true doesn’t make it so.

      • Adrien Nash says:

        Actually, if I was forced to wager on the issue, I’d wager on greater patriotism in the naturalized citizen than the natural citizen. They have to go to considerable lengths and appreciate the eventual reward whereas those born to it completely take it for granted and appreciate nothing.
        But the modern truth about patriotism is not connected to the concerns of the framers of the Constitution and the future security of the nation, -which could be seriously threatened by a loyalist sycophant or heir of European royalty being given the power of the Commander in Chief. Hence the natural precaution of disallowing anyone born with dual allegiance through a foreign father instead of solely American roots and American loyalty via an American father.

        • Hence the natural precaution of disallowing anyone born with dual allegiance through a foreign father instead of solely American roots and American loyalty via an American father.

          People born with dual citizenship are not disallowed. Your are imaging that.

          • Adrien Nash says:

            RE Dual citizenship: Here’s the concluding column of a four page exposition I just finished writing:

            Thus, he is fully subject to two national authorities and duties, as is the latent status of his native-born sons until they reach adulthood. Then they also become subject to both nations, with the land of their birth and residency having primary claim. They are natural citizens of their father’s homeland, and adopted citizens of the land that is their home and place of birth.
            Before, and without, the 14th Amendment, the federal government did not recognize the native-born minor children of foreigners as American citizens even though some of the States did, so such “sons of the soil” were de facto citizens. They were State citizens, and Americans, but not Citizens of the United States because their roots were foreign since they had no American parents, -meaning also that they did not have United States citizens as parents. So they were viewed as only what their foreign father was (his wife’s nationality following his). It was a recognized conundrum.

            ** Obama openly acknowledges that he was born as a dual citizen (U.S. –Kenya) but fails to admit what that implies (dual subjection to two nations).
            Adrien Nash Sept. 2013
            July 23, 2013
            Kenya’s Senate has passed a law that brings back National Youth Service (NYS) conscription for high school graduates.
            Under the law passed unanimously July 18th, the pre-university service will no longer be voluntary. All high school graduates will be required to sign up for the NYS, a program that seeks to give young people vocational training, instill patriotism and empower them to help safeguard the country.
            The NYS was established in 1964 to train youths in tasks of national importance, including service in the armed forces, national reconstruction programs and disaster response. For more than 20 years, pre-university stints with the NYS were compulsory for Kenyan high school graduates.
            “It was gradually scrapped in the late 1980s and the re-introduction is aimed at addressing security, patriotism and morals,” Elachi told Sabahi.
            In 1979 Obama was subject to both NYS conscription in Kenya and U.S. Selective Service registration. I have to assume that if Indonesia has conscription at the time, he would have been subject to it also. Three nations with a claim on his allegiance and national service.

            I found 9 other African nations which currently have involuntary military conscription. If he were born of a father from any of them, he would also face dual military service duty.
            One subject to two nations is not a natural citizen of either. The opposite of dual citizenship is no citizenship in either nation. If a foreign woman (from a nation that does not recognize nationality transmission through mothers -which long included the U.S.) gives birth in a nation that does not recognize jus soli citizenship, her child will be a stateless person with no nationality. To avoid such an extreme case, nation’s pass nationality statutes for abnormal foreign birth circumstances.
            But…statutory citizenship is not natural citizenship. Dual obligation = non-natural citizen.]
            Obama is neither a natural citizen, a constitutional citizen, a statutory citizen, a provisional citizen, nor a derivative citizen. He is purely a political policy citizen based on the perversion of the Wong ruling by the Attorney General in 1898.

        • He is purely a political policy citizen based on the perversion of the Wong ruling by the Attorney General in 1898.

          Such delusion, there are two types of citizens and two types only: natural born and naturalized. President Obama is the former.

          • Adrien Nash says:

            RC wrote: “there are two types of citizens and two types only: natural born and naturalized.”
            Honestly, you are too ignorant on the subject of citizenship to have a conversation with you. Clearly you are totally unaware that there are over tens varieties of citizens, plus an eleventh which is a fiction of law created by the Supreme Court and known as an artificial citizen, aka a Corporate Citizen. Corporations are citizens too and entitled to most of a citizen’s rights and immunities. Educate yourself a little why don’t you?

            PS Today I learned from research that Obama was subject to Kenyan conscription into the National Youth Service but never served as he was required to. If he had not allowed his Kenyan citizenship to lapse by not taking the Kenyan oath of Allegiance and Renunciation then he would have been guilty of a criminal offense for draft evasion. ~ Citizen of four nations: Canada, Indonesia, Kenya, and U.S. Not a natural citizen of any of them, but still a citizen of perhaps two or three.

        • COMALite J says:

          Honestly, you are too ignorant on the subject of citizenship to have a conversation with you. Clearly you are totally unaware that there are over tens [of] varieties of citizens,…

          List and name them individually, and back each one up with a link to a primary source (no Birther blogs need apply — actual Federal statues or court cases only, please). 21 at least, since you specified “tens” plural and also specified “over” meaning at least one more than that.

          …plus an eleventh…

          Oooookaaay. So, you were exaggerating when you said “…over tens…”? Or are you gonna try to claim typo, despite the fact that [S] and [N] are nowhere near each other (different rows and typed with different hands!) on a standard QWERTY keyboard layout (not to mention typoing the whole word “over” plus the space preceding or following it)? Okay, I’ll accept that ludicrous excuse. List ten types of citizens, and back each one up with a link to the Federal statue or U.S. (not State) Supreme Court decision that defines it.

          …which is a fiction of law created by the Supreme Court and known as an artificial citizen, aka a Corporate Citizen. Corporations are citizens too and entitled to most of a citizen’s rights and immunities. Educate yourself a little why don’t you?

          Take your last sentence’s advice for yourself. “Artificial Citizen” is actually “Artificial Person” and is simply any legal Person-like entity that isn’t a Natural Person, which currently includes only living human beings (members of subspecies Homo sapien sapien), which are held under axioms given in the Declaration to possess Inherent and Unalienable Rights by the very condition of being a Person (“…endowed by their Creator with…”).

          There are two main types of Artificial Person: “Aggregate” and “Estate.” “Aggregate Persons” include corporations, unions, trusts, incorporated communities, etc.

          The one thing you got right was that these are legal fictions that exist solely to allow them to participate in civil tort and contract law on an equal footing with Natural Persons, and which are thus granted pseudo-Right Powers to mimic some of the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Natural Persons. This is why your employer can require you to sign a contract as a condition of employment, how anyone can enter into a contract of any kind with a corporation (or union or trust or community), and how any of those entities can be sued in a civil tort case.

          Artificial Persons are not citizens of any kind (only the Natural Persons which comprise an Aggregate Person, or a deceased Natural Person whose estate constitutes the Estate Person that survives him or her long enough to settle his or her affairs, are or can be citizens), and so are not relevant to this. At all. Period.

          • Adrien Nash says:

            I attempted to find an exposition with a title that would indicate the one in which I listed ten types of citizenship but was unable to find one with such a title. The task is quite enormous since I’ve written an amazing number of expositions in the last year. The titles go on and on and on. But I found a one-page graphic which shows eight of the ten. Its on my home page in 3 sizes. Here’s the print-size version:

            The two that aren’t included are American women who lost their U.S. citizenship due to marrying foreign men (1907-1922) but later became repatriated via naturalization by signing a paper. Also, children born to them during their expatriation years who became naturalized when their mother divorced, or was widowed, and then became repatriated.

            As for artificial citizens, that can refer to either artificial legal entities (corporations are citizens) or to citizens by law since they are not natural citizens. Law is an artifice, an abstract construct which in the realm of national membership is needed to make members of those who are not members but are outsiders instead. Such an artifice produces artificial citizens in contrast to natural citizens who need no law since their membership is by birth, by blood, by natural inheritance.

            see my newest elucidation on citizenship titled: The Duty of Citizens of the United States
            It’s in semi-graphic & text format, one page:

        • COMALiteJ

          Excellent comment. Welcome to the blog.

  8. Jim says:

    Adrien, have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? You passed into failure a long time ago.

  9. Adrien Nash says:

    Gee, what a brilliant retort! I see my “returns” are dramatically “diminishing”. For shame, it must be so ’cause genius Jim says so. I guess that I and the actual facts passed into “failure” along with the bastardization of logical thought which permeates your thinking.
    Oh, and what exactly did you disagree with in the quotes I served-up? Nothing? Apparently so or you would certainly have said so dripping with sarcasm and mockery? Where is the sarcasm regarding the quotes and the facts they convey? (It must be hidden under your bed where you keep your brain.)

  10. Jim says:

    Obama’s still President until January 2017, and you’ll still be showing your irrelevance long after that. You really ought to try and get out of your momma’s basement once in a while and see the sunshine.

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