"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.]

Advertisements
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:

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  6. 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)

    • 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?

    • 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    • Jason Swenson says:

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

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. patriotwatchchicago says:

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

  14. 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.

  15. Jason Swenson says:

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

    • 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

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.”

  21. patriotwatchchicago says:

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

  22. 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.

    • 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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.

    • 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

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

    • 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.

  33. 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!

  34. 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?

  35. 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.

  36. 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

  37. Maybe pwc is an escapee from BR? Over there he would be considered a genius. 😆

  38. 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.

  39. I enjoyed our new Birther play toy pwc today. That was a fun diversion. 😉

  40. 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