Birther Attorney and Not a Constitutional Expert Succumbs to COVID-19

We learned a few days ago that Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo had passed over the weekend from complications associated with COVID-19. Apuzzo was 65 years old and had been hospitalized with COVID and pneumonia.

Apuzzo filed one of the early Birther lawsuits against then President Barack Obama on behalf a handful of plaintiffs as Obama was about to be inaugurated as the first black president in 2009. The lawsuit, Kerchner v Obama, was of course dismissed at the district court level and failed on appeal to the 3rd Circuit and in the Supreme Court.

You can read Mario Apuzzo’s obituary here. Apparently he was quite active in his local Italian American community.

Apuzzo was the second or third attorney (Orly Taitz may have been the second but Orly was such a copycat it is difficult to tell) to use what was later described as the “two citizen parent” theory for the definition of the term natural-born citizen as used in article II of the US Constitution. New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio had included this argument in a lawsuit filed in New Jersey about the time of the November 2008 election.

Birther blogs like the Post & Email are praising Apuzzo as an “expert Constitutional attorney”. Let’s get that straight. Apuzzo was no expert on the Constitution. He tried to argue on his blog, in comment streams, and in actual cases his theory that to be eligible to be president one had to have two US citizen parents. He lost every case in which in tried to make this argument.

Apuzzo never wrote or published a single article in a reputable, vetted, law journal. The overwhelming majority of real constitutional experts disagreed with him. In short, he pushed a crackpot theory not accepted by real experts. His appeal in the dismissed Kerchner v Obama case in the Third Circuit was ruled to be frivolous. It was only after Apuzzo groveled before the court in a response to the OSC that monetary sanctions were waived. The ruling that the appeal was frivolous stood.

This entry was posted in Ballot Challenge, Barack Obama, Birthers, Mario Apuzzo and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

178 Responses to Birther Attorney and Not a Constitutional Expert Succumbs to COVID-19

  1. COMALite J says:

    His whole argument basically boiled down to him not understanding plurals work. In English and in the French that de Vattel wrote (which was faultily translated into English after the Framers wrote the Constitution — the only English translations they could’ve had access to did not use, let alone define, the term “natural born citizen”). Even taking the faulty English translation of Vattel, he only wrote that “natives or indigenes” (later mistranslated as “natives, or natural born citizens,” are those born of parents who are citizens.

    At first that does seem like plural parents, right? But the “natural born citizens” is also plural, so even if only one parent of each were a citizen, that’d still be plural parents, like if someone said “drivers are wasting fuel in their cars through inefficient driving,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that each and every driver must have more than one car.

    But even not taking that into account, singular vs. plural isn’t as simple as whether you’re talking about one or more than one of something. There’s also indeterminate quantity plurals. If you don’t know how many there is of something ,and it could be one or it could be more than one, the plural is the correct form to use [you could also go the wordy “parent(s) who is/are citizen(s)” but that is not necessary].

    Example: imagine a public assembly such as a county hall meeting where the public attends and county officials address the public on a variety of subjects. They get to the part about the county school system, and one of them says, “If you have children in our county public schools, please raise your hand.” Even if you only have one child in one of the schools, you should still raise your hand.

    Let’s say that this assembly is held at the county courthouse. At the front entrance is a walk-through metal detector and a sign: “WEAPONS PROHIBITED PAST THIS POINT.” Try to sneak one gun in past the metal detectors. When they go to arrest you, point out that the sign uses the plural and you only brought one weapon in. See how far that gets you.

    No law or ruling that I know of has ever said that a natural born citizen must have “two parents, both of whom are citizens” or “both parents are citizens” or “father and mother” or “mother and father are citizens” or any other such. Just that a natural born citizen has citizen parents. If the quantity isn’t specified, under the indeterminate quantity plural rule, the plural is acceptable even if the quantity can be one, so long as it can also be more than one.

  2. Ajay says:

    You don’t have to be a Constitutional attorney to know the longtime definition of natural born citizen: born in the country (jus Solis) to two citizen parents (jus sanguines). This derives from natural law and goes back to Ancient Rome. (Vattel didn’t make it up.)

    “No man made law bestows natural born citizenship.” It is the only US citizenship that cannot be taken away, although it can be renounced.

    The first version of Article 2 had only specified “citizen”, but the Framers wanted to ensure more allegiance by any POTUS to the country and changed it to NBC. The first generation or so for POTUS were grandfathered in, if they were alive when the Constitution was written.

    The US Code recognizes three separate types of citizenship: naturalized, native born and natural born. The latter is a subset of native born and is pure citizenship. More than 93% of US citizens are NBC’s. Other countries, such as Egypt, also have the NBC requirement.

    All major SCOTUS decisions on citizenship only recognize this one definition and acknowledge that its meaning has always existed before outside the Constitution. They are not the definers of that law. The clearest case was Minor vs. Happersett in the 1800’s in which Minor argued that, if she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, then she should have the right to vote thru the 15th. However, the court ruled that she was a NBC, having been born in the US to two US citizen parents. NBC’s do NOT get citizenship thru any man-made law— not the 14th, any of the Naturalization Acts, or any act of Congress. The Wong Kim Ark case wasn’t centered around the NBC issue but whether he could have any US citizenship at all with legally domiciled foreign parents. (It was a sham decision by the Gray court.)

    Many attempts have been made to obscure or ignore the NBC requirement over the years. Clinton, Obama, McCaskill, and another passed Sen. Res. 511 in 2008 trying to declare McCain a NBC, citing that he had TWO US citizen parents. However, he was born in Panama outside the Canal Zone, so lacked jus Solis. Obama, of course, lacked jus sanguine, but that was swept under the rug. Thus, 2008 featured two main candidates who were ineligible.

    Since valid birth records for Obama/Soetoro have never been proven, he may not have been born with any US citizenship. If born in a foreign country, his supposed mother was too young to pass US citizenship to him at the time according to the laws then.

    The NBC requirement in Article 2 can be changed by Amendment, but prior attempts have never succeeded. Instead, certain interests have now taken to ignoring it to install whomever they wanted. McCain was never likely to raise the issue re Obama. And because US voters either never took a decent Civics class, and/or certain key info was scrubbed from online sources in 2008, it was easy to hoodwink voters by focusing only on the birth certificate issue and then marginalizing those raising questions as “birthers.” In addition, a sealing of his college registration of possibly being a foreign student. Thus, a psy-op “birther” smear campaign inserted into a massive PR push by those seeking to get Obama in.

    2008 soon paved the way to now having an ineligible VP, Harris, who was born to two foreigners and mostly raised in Canada. There are many others who have tried to run also not eligible. Each Secretary of State is supposed to keep ineligible candidates off the ballots, such as when Eldridge Cleaver was removed because he didn’t meet the Article 2 age requirement. However, all that is no more. In 2008 Roger Calero, not even a US citizen, appeared on ballots.

    • COMALite J says:

      Wow, so much wrong in your Gish Gallop!

      First, I challenge you to show any law in the USA at the federal level, or any court ruling, that distinguishes between “native born” and “natural born.” There are two types of citizenship as shown by the very term “naturalized” to describe those who obtain citizenship other than at birth. When you “–ize” something, you bestow a status like unto that which precedes the suffiix. Notice that nobody claims that there’s such a thing as “nativeized citizen.” (Again, basic English grammar trips you folks up.) If you’re a citizen at birth through natural means, you’re a natural born citizen. Period. There is no such thing as “native born” as distinguished from “natural born.” They’re synonyms!

      Secondly, McCain and Obama were both Natural-Born Citizens. That status in the USA can be obtained through either jus suli or jus sanguinis or both. Either one of those suffices (otherwise our military and ambassadors who give birth overseas would not be able to pass on that status to their offspring, which’d be a lousy thing to do to those who serve our nation that way). This has been further established through law such as the Immigration and Naturalization Acts.

      Thirdly, Obama’s birth certificates have been thoroughly vetted. The only people who disagree are those with a vested interest in believing otherwise and who either don’t understand, or hope their audience doesn’t understand, basics of computer graphics such as how .PDF files get layers when scanned from a paper document in Scan-to-Email mode on a Xerox® WorkCentre™, what MRC and JBIG2 algorithms are and do (if you don’t already know, without looking it up, what those stand for and what they mean, you’re not intellectually quali󟬁ed to debate me on this), etc. You can replicate every “suspicious” artifact in the Obama long form by scanning any known genuine document of your own directly into any relatively recent version of Adobe Acrobat (version 6 or later, including ⁩ , and DC). Ask me if you want step-by-step instructions. All you need is a computer (Windows or MacOS), Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro (not Reader), a scanner, and any document of basically similar nature that you know is genuine (heck, a canceled check will do for this). You must promise to video the results and upload it to YouTube. That’s how sure I am of this.

      Notice that no President, nor candidate for President, had ever been even asked to show a birth certificate to verify their NBC bona-fides prior to 2008. Not George Washington, not George W. Bush, not anyone in-between, not any of their opponents. McCain was the first to be asked (for the reasons you brought up — not that it mattered because he had jus sanguinis), then Obama showed his “short-form” Certification of Live Birth” (because under Hawaii state law, that was all that was available).

      Oh, and Obama’s name was never “Sœtoro.” Only an elementary school record in Indonesia had his student record filed under that, and that only because the law there at the time required students to be listed under the surname of the head of household, even if unrelated to said head of household (Barack was never adopted by Lolo Sœtoro). Also, contrary to popular Birther belief (I know you didn’t say this, but I’m bringing it up because it’s related), Obama never attended a Muslim school there (or anywhere else). He attended a public school, then a Catholic private school named after St. Francis of Assisi. Yes, both were technically “madrassas,” but only because “madrassa” is Arabic for “school” (all schools in Arabic-speaking nations are madrassas).

      Obama’s college records were never sealed. Like anyone else’s, his college transcripts are private info which only those with a legitimate need to know (such as employers) can legally access. “Sealed” is a specific legal term meaning a court order legally blocking from public access information which normally would be public. No such court-ordered (or any other legal) action was ever taken for Obama’s college records.

      (And no, his first Executive Order №13489 had nothing to do with sealing Presidential records — it was the 180° diametric opposite of that, undoing a previous E.O. (#x2166;13233) by GWB that had extended the time of the public not being able to view Presidential records, and rolling it back to what it had been under Reagan, Other than Obama’s name and the date, the wording of Obama’s E.O. №13489 is 100% verbatim identical to Reagan’s E.O. №12667 except for the addition of §6 which reads, and I quote: “Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 [by GWB] of November 1, 2001 is revoked).

      If you’re thinking of the Columbia University “FOREIGN STUDENT” ID card supposedly for Obama shown on the Internet back then, that’s a known Photoshopped fake. It was done by taking the ID of a German student from his own website and modifying it, including changing the text in the ID. When Obama attended, Columbia didn’t even use bar-coded IDs because that technology wasn’t affordable to schools yet. Their requirements once they did start using those mandated a color photo (the German student’s had one). The altered text lined up perfectly with the bounding box of the image but not with the card itself which was rotated about 1° clockwise. This of course is a dead giveaway, meaning the text was typed in Photoshop as a text layer, and the forger didn’t even bother to rotate the layers 1° CW. Oh, and no Columbia IDs have ever said “FOREIGN STUDENT,” even if the student was foreign. The German’s just said “STUDENT.”

      Finally, all of Birtherism has been traced back (by researcher Loren Collins) and shown to’ve been inspired by a comment on a blog post at 2:02 ㏂ on Leap Year Day, 2008, by one “Dave N.” who was trying to be helpful in a discussion on a short article by law professor Eugene Volokh on his eponymous The Volokh Conspiracy blog on the subject of whether McCain qualified as an NBC (he does, and Volokh concluded same). “Dave N” attempted to clarify the situation by using a hypothetical scenario as an analogy “(just for grins and giggles)” asking what would the situation be if it were Obama who’d been born in, say, Kenya, then flown back to the USA and his birth registered there.

      That comment was almost certainly seen by, or shown or described to, a somewhat less well-intentioned elderly (and now deceased as of 2013) Iranian ex-patriot living in California named Ali R. Pahlavan who did multiple blogs under an Anglicized version of his Persian name, “Alan Peters,” and also posted on Free Republic as “FARS” (the main Iranian dialect of the Persian language is Farsi). The very next day after “Dave N.” posted his hypothetical scenario as an analogy “(just for grins and giggles),” “FARS” posted the same basic thing (along with another rumor that was very easily discredited, claiming that Senator Obama had been sworn in on a Qu’ran [that was Congressman Keith Ellison who did that, and whose similarly skin-toned hand had been shown in a photo doing that and spread around the Internet lyingly captioned as Obama’s]), saying, “I was told today that….” It was Comment №391 on Freeper Thread №1978110, “Pin the Middle Name on the Obama” and it’s still there. At first other Freepers called him out for posting such wild unsubstantiated rumors, but others later in the thread expressed interest, so three days later he posted it as a full-fledged accusation on his pseudonymous Alan Peters’ [sic] Ruthless Roundup blog.

      There’s more to how it spread from there, and Mr. Collins thoroughly documented every step. It didn’t fully hit the mainstream until June 9, when the National Review published an op-ed by Jim Geraghty entitled “Obama Could Debunk Some Rumors by Releasing his Birth Certificate.” It was shortly after that that Obama released his “short form.” Neither Hillary nor her campaign nor her supporters had anything to do with starting Birtherism, though some supporters did help spread it later.

      That’s how what you believe got started: from a short comment on a blog that included a hypothetical (word used twice in the comment) scenario posted as an analogy “(just for grins and giggles)” (parenthetical also directly from said comment).

    • You don’t have to be a Constitutional attorney to know the longtime definition of natural born citizen: born in the country (jus Solis) to two citizen parents (jus sanguines). This derives from natural law and goes back to Ancient Rome. (Vattel didn’t make it up.)

      But no real Constitutional attorney agrees with that. Vattel himself said that England used a different system for determining citizenship. That’s why every Birther case based upon your erroneous thinking lost. Vattel was documenting what countries on the European continent followed, not England and not the USA, which did not even exist until several decades after de Vattel wrote his treatises.

      The US Code recognizes three separate types of citizenship: naturalized, native born and natural born. The latter is a subset of native born and is pure citizenship. More than 93% of US citizens are NBC’s. Other countries, such as Egypt, also have the NBC requirement.

      No it does not. The terms native born and natural born are used interchangeably in the laws and court decisions.

      All major SCOTUS decisions on citizenship only recognize this one definition and acknowledge that its meaning has always existed before outside the Constitution. They are not the definers of that law. The clearest case was Minor vs. Happersett in the 1800’s in which Minor argued that, if she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, then she should have the right to vote thru the 15th. However, the court ruled that she was a NBC, having been born in the US to two US citizen parents. NBC’s do NOT get citizenship thru any man-made law— not the 14th, any of the Naturalization Acts, or any act of Congress. The Wong Kim Ark case wasn’t centered around the NBC issue but whether he could have any US citizenship at all with legally domiciled foreign parents. (It was a sham decision by the Gray court.)

      In Minor the court said in plain English that it was not deciding who were natural born citizens and recognized there was still some controversy as to who those were. It was a voting rights case and said the court did not need to decide the question.

      Many attempts have been made to obscure or ignore the NBC requirement over the years. Clinton, Obama, McCaskill, and another passed Sen. Res. 511 in 2008 trying to declare McCain a NBC, citing that he had TWO US citizen parents. However, he was born in Panama outside the Canal Zone, so lacked jus Solis. Obama, of course, lacked jus sanguine, but that was swept under the rug. Thus, 2008 featured two main candidates who were ineligible.

      Well that is your version of what happened but it is fantasy. Regardless, the Senate was just trying to quell a small controversy over the status of one of its own to run and the resolution carried no force of law. It was non-binding.

      Since valid birth records for Obama/Soetoro have never been proven, he may not have been born with any US citizenship. If born in a foreign country, his supposed mother was too young to pass US citizenship to him at the time according to the laws then.

      His name is not Soetoro and your claims on his birth certificate are just plain horseshit.

      The NBC requirement in Article 2 can be changed by Amendment, but prior attempts have never succeeded. Instead, certain interests have now taken to ignoring it to install whomever they wanted. McCain was never likely to raise the issue re Obama. And because US voters either never took a decent Civics class, and/or certain key info was scrubbed from online sources in 2008, it was easy to hoodwink voters by focusing only on the birth certificate issue and then marginalizing those raising questions as “birthers.” In addition, a sealing of his college registration of possibly being a foreign student. Thus, a psy-op “birther” smear campaign inserted into a massive PR push by those seeking to get Obama in.

      Every Civics book ever written says anyone born in the US (and meeting the other requirements is eligible to be president. It is you who never took a Civics class or slept through it if you did.

      2008 soon paved the way to now having an ineligible VP, Harris, who was born to two foreigners and mostly raised in Canada. There are many others who have tried to run also not eligible. Each Secretary of State is supposed to keep ineligible candidates off the ballots, such as when Eldridge Cleaver was removed because he didn’t meet the Article 2 age requirement. However, all that is no more. In 2008 Roger Calero, not even a US citizen, appeared on ballots.

      VP Harris is eligible and lawsuits objecting to her eligibility were all dismissed. The Electoral College decision was affirmed by a joint session of Congress.

    • Looks like Ajay did a drive by and was not really interested in defending his views. He is just a coward like all Birthers seem to be.

      • COMALite J says:

        ♪♫ Brave Sir A-jay ran a-way. ♫♪
        ♫♪ Brave-ly ran a-way, a-way. ♪♫
        ♪♫ When | de-bate reared it’s ug-ly head, ♫♪
        ♫♪ He | brave-ly turned his tail and fled. ♪♫
        ♪♫ Yes, | brave Sir A-jay turned a-bout, ♫♪
        ♫♪ And | gal-lant-ly he chic-kened out. ♪♫
        ♪♫ Brave-ly tak-ing to his feet, ♫♪
        ♫♪ He beat a ve-ry brave re-treat. ♪♫
        ♪♫ Brav-est of the brave, Sir | A-jay! ♫♪

  3. To sum up my feelings on Mario: How can he have been an expert Constitutional attorney when he only opined and litigated on a single Constitutional issue and he was wrong about that one? (99% of attorneys disagreed with him. He lost at least a dozen times in court on the same issue. Maybe Art could explain that to us.

    • Northland10 says:

      Don’t hold your breath on that one. Anyway, don’t you realize that the definition of “Constitutional Attorney” is “somebody who says stuff I like”? Actual experience and training are not required.

      • LOL Yes, that sums things up.

        Mario did not like it when I pointed out that in his complaint in Kerchner v Obama he never cited Minor v Happersett even once and the two parent citizen thing only received a passing mention in a footnote. His answer was to claim that attorneys do not cite cases in complaints. Of course his own complaint in Kerchner had something like 20 other cases cited.

        I think John Woodman came to the same conclusion that when you backed Mario into a corner he would lie.

        • Ike says:

          Lying is what everybody seen you Obots do when I took yas on. That is, besides playing the race card – your specialty.

          You, Lupin, Woodman, Vickland and your other fellow-traveling useful idiot Obots didn’t get anything right when I was there. I didn’t realize just how dumb you really are.

          Except for his claim about McCain, Ajay was spot on.

          Here’s something to make your day:

          [Obscenity removed]

          • Ike continues to bring dishonesty and stupidity to an entirely new level.

            As ComaLiteJ carefully explained Ajay was wrong on just about everything as have been you Ike.

            • Ike says:

              What your fellow traveling pinko Obots don’t realize is you blocked of my replies to them & you when I last took yas on. I believe there were 6 you blocked & if you count the duplicates it totals up to atleast 12. Then you also removed a couple that were already posted. In both cases I asked you why you were doing that & to release them. You gaave some lame excuses regarding your email that didn’t make any sense. What does removing what was already posted have to do with your email?

              I have my doubts you will let this through but if you do I’ll add that many of you Obots lied about the issues and other times showed you were brain washed useful idiots of the lying Left’s propaganda mill.

              You showed your complete ignorance on the terms ‘my boy & your boy’ that I explained to you about 5 years ago with examples of blacks in the media using the terms, or were you being a twit an using it to grandstand?

              If you still have them release my replies to Vickland so he’ll understand where he has it wrong.

              • You were given a time out for violating the comment policy. Anything you may have posted when I told you you were suspended are long gone. Why don’t you enlighten us with your wisdom instead of continuing to act like a juvenile? It seems Vicklund destroyed your last arguments. Why are you so obsessed with calling a black man “boy” anyway? I think we can all answer that question.

          • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

            As a reminder, the last time RainbowDike engaged us, he quote-mined an abridged French-English dictionary to claim that “parens” only meant “parents” and never “relatives.” I cited dozens of other dictionaries, from before, during, and after de Vattel’s time and the drafting of the Constitution, showing that “parens” was used to mean relatives (in fact, it started out meaning relatives and only later came to also mean specifically parents). At first he refused to read the sources, then when I quoted them, he denied their validity. Then I started putting the squeeze on. First, I showed that his preferred author defined “parens” as relatives in the unabridged editions. He spluttered something about it being a turn of phrase, not the actual definition. Then the coup de grace: I showed in another part of the abridged version he originally cited that the actual translation of relatives was given as “parens.” The results were rather predictable. Ike threw a fit, deliberately writing a post which he knew would get him banned (because it had gotten him banned in the past and he was warned that doing so again would get him immediately banned again).

            So yeah, Ike is a lying coward. Oh, and to reiterate a point made earlier: section 214 of de Vattel renders any discussion of the meaning of “parens” (or “indegenes”) academic, since it describes the English tradition of natural-born nationality.

            • The weakness of the Birther position has always been glaringly obvious. After all sorts of independent evidence surfaced that the President Elect Obama was indeed born in Hawaii the Birthers had to turn elsewhere to try to make the black guy ineligible. Leo Donofrio found the Minor v Happersett case and misread part of the obiter dicta. This was a moot case concerning women’s suffrage and had nothing to do with who were natural born. The passage in Minor never said what Leo read it to say and Apuzzo who was also an attorney and should have known better lied about it until the day he died.

              Other Birthers Googled and found the writings of an obscure 18th century Swiss philosopher whom no one had ever heard about before. They misread him too and continue to do so.

              It is not remarkable at all that the Birthers amassed such and abysmal record litigating the issue in the courts where it really counts.

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              My memory was a little off: after being so spectacularly proven wrong, Ike ran away for three months, then came back and started in on the 14th Amendment. Shortly after, he flew his anti-vax freak flag, and that is when he full on violated the comment policy. Anyone curious about the first two can find it in the following post (search on my last name to narrow it down): https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/for-the-thousandth-time-anyone-born-on-us-soil-under-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states-is-a-natural-born-citizen-period/

              • I reread some of the comments there. Fine job by you. Ike’s comments seem even sillier in hindsight, especially the one about the “Make the Dem’s cry in 2020” baseball cap. I wish I had one now! It may be a collectors’ item.

              • Northland10 says:

                I am not entirely sure of what Ike actually believes because none of that is important to how he comments. He is going for a reaction and to play word games and nothing more. His posts are not an opinion but an attempt to get a rise out of others. This is also why he had gotten so whiney in the past after getting baned. He is in it for the game and nothing more.

              • Ike is the classic troll. That is why he was banned at Doc’s OCT blog. I suppose I just enjoy seeing the full on Dunning-Kruger effect on display.

            • Ike says:

              Vicklund,

              Quit the lying. I gave 100 years (1719 to 1819) showing how 2 French words were being defined and translated into English. All the dictionaries (Boyer) I checked (about a dozen) had it the same:

              Parent/Parents (Fr)- relation/relations = (El) kin

              Paren/Parens (Fr)- père ou mère/père & mère = (El) father or mother/father & mother (parents)

              I used the Boyer because it was the one being found in the American founders libraries & especially Franklin’s. He was the sage that many of the founders looked to for approval, and especially Jefferson while he was crafting the Declaration.

              What you have are a few that are defined differently. Good job finding them. Remember, I told you there were errors and so did that article you used on the lexicographer.

              RC started with the racist accusations more than once before I ever started mocking him. RC, Northland, and a couple others have been doing it to me for years. I’m white, maybe they’re black, I don’t know, but in every case over the years they’ve started it & expect me to take their sleazy race mongering attacks.

              The truth is, unless you really are stupid, you are a coward for not standing up for the truth when you know RC, Lupin and Woodman have been lying.

              6 1/2 years ago (May 2015) I finally broke through and got Dr Con to correct the misleading claims Lupin made in what he calls “Vattel’s citizenship article” (§ 212. Citizens and natives.) after more than 3 years of putting up with him & his comrades smearing attacks on me.

              (More on this later when I have time)

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                Nice try, Ike, but none of the Boyer dictionaries have “paren” as a word, or “parents” as a French word. They do have “parens” as the translation for “kinred” (of which “kindred” and “kinsfolks” are variants). Also, “Parens” is listed as a sub-category of “PARENT” (notice the capitalization). Scattered throughout the dictionaries there are multiple instances of “parens” used in sentences or phrases, and in almost all cases the English is “relatives” or “kinsmen” or the like. In some Boyer dictionaries, “Parens” has two entries, one for mother and father, and the other for relatives.

                Simply put, “parent” (masculine) or “parente” (feminine) is the singular for relative, and “parens” is the plural, but it can be used to refer specifically to mother and father. “Paren” is not the singular form of the English parent, and “parents” is not the plural form of the French parent.

                But if you think you can prove me wrong, go ahead and cite the Boyer dictionary. I’ll wait.

              • Ike says:

                Vicklund,

                Lets cut to the chase an conclude with the reason Vattel used parens, instead of parents as both Lupin & RC have tried to claim in the article & comment section of “For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.”

                You’re right, parens was specifically used by Vattel to denote père & mère (father & mother). It’s the only term he could use to keep it in context. You’re born to a father & mother, not other relatives including Uncle Pepé & Aunt Fifi.

                Vattel was raised & schooled in Neuchâtel a French speaking district/area of Switzerland. As a writer he understood very well how the French terms/words were to be used.

                The question I asked myself early on when I 1st started reading the ongoing debates regarding what Lupin was calling “Vattel’s citizenship article” (§ 212. Citizens and natives): Why didn’t Vattel use the French terms/words PARENT or Parents if he wanted to include all the relative?

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                First, I note that Ike has conceded that he can’t back up his claimed use of paren and parents as French words in Boyer’s dictionary.

                I had intended to document all the times parens was used in Boyer’s 1955 abridged dictionary, including the translation into English, and show how in modern French, the spelling is now parents, both for mother and father and for relatives. As Lupin explained, parens became parents after de Vattel and Boyer passed. Now I seemed to recall that shortly before 1850, French spelling changed so the plural of words ending in -ent were now spelled -ents rather than -ens. As I was looking for examples of parens in Boyer’s dictionary, I stumbled on a French word I did not know and decided to look it up. The word was enterremens, and when I read the entry on the French version of Wiktionary, I immediately scrapped my original plan. According to Wiktionnaire, enterremens is an archaic form of the plural for enterrement (burial), used prior to 1835. Lo and behold, 1835 was a hyperlink to an annex detailing the French Spelling Reform of 1835, brought about by the publication of the 6th Edition of the Dictionary of the French Academy. The reform of 1835 brought about three major changes:

                switch from -oi- to -ai- where pronunciation had changed
                words ending in -nt changed the plural from -ns to -nts, except where they alreadyended in -nts for the plural
                dropping the use of & and replacing with et in certain situations

                De Vattel used parens because that was the plural of parent (Fr) at the time he wrote his treatise. Boyer used parens multiple times to mean both parents (En) and relatives because that was the plural of parent (Fr) at the time he wrote his dictionary. Lupin used parents because that is now the plural of parent (Fr). In all cases, parent (Fr) means relative, and can mean parent (En). Let’s look at the phrase “nearest kin.” Boyer on several instances translates this as “proches parens.” However, modern French dictionaries translate it as “proches parents.” Now, de Vattel could have used a different phrase if he wanted to be explicit that only birth parents counted, especially if he intended to advance the argument that both parents needed to be citizens. He simply could have used the phrase “le pere et la mere” (adjusted for grammar) in place of “parens.” He doubtless was aware of the custom in France (and otherFrench-speaking countries) of counting children born in the country to foreign parents, but having citizen uncles and grandparents, as naturels (natives). His failure to disambiguate indicates that he did not mean to exclude that practice.

                Here’s the link to Wiktionnaire. Note that you may have to use Google translate.

                https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/enterremens

                Also make sure to look up parens and note that it too had its spelling changed in 1835. Another fun fact: by 1777, the recommended practice was if a word ending in -nt normally pluralized as -ns was linked to another word(s) that retained the t when pluralized, the initial word should retain the t as well. The example given includes parent (Fr). “Des enfants charmants” (charming infants) causes parens to change to parents in the phrase “des enfants charmants des parents” (parents of the charming infants). A final note: in French, -ns, -nts, and -nt are all pronounced the same when at the end of a word. So the presence or absence of the t is purely cosmetic.

              • Excellent research Kevin! Of course Ike will ignore it because it is beyond his ability to do critical thinking. After all he blames the Democratic Party for getting us into a war that saved the free world from totalitarianism. He also thinks the guy who just wrote this was a great president: (:lol: at least we can say that Trump told the truth once even if by accident)

                This means that de Vattel would have considered Barack Obama a natural born citizen of France because he had a citizen mother and citizen relatives on his mothers side.

              • Yes, Ike has pretty much resorted to “I told you all of this two years ago and cannot be bothered to produce it again”. He has been backed into a corner on his mistranslation of de Vattel and misunderstanding of the importance of English common law in the early history of the US as it pertains to the definition of natural born citizen. This is where he usually posts some racist crap in order to get banned again.

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                I presume you mean if Obama had been born in France to a French citzen mother and French citizen grandparents (just to make it explicit for the pedants). I personally believe de Vattel would classify Obama as a Kenyan with French citizenship. At this point, I’d like to point out section 122:

                The term, Country, seems to be pretty generally known: but as it is taken in different senses, it may not be unuseful to give it here an exact definition. It commonly signifies the Stale of which one is a member: in this sense we have used it in the preceding sections; and it is to be thus understood in the law of nations.
                In a more confined sense, and more agreeably to its etymology, this term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth. In this sense, it is justly said, that our country cannot be changed, and always remains the same, to whatsoever place we may afterwards remove. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth. But as various lawful reasons may oblige him to choose another country,-that is, to become a member of another society; so when we speak in general of the duty to our coun­try, the term is to be understood as meaning the state of which a man is an actual member; since it is the latter, in preference to every other state, that he is bound to serve with his utmost effort.

                Even de Vattel recognized the power of natural-born citizenship to secure allegiance. This also explains why he takes no issue with the English mode of nationality, as described in section 214. Finally, I would like to observe that de Vattel’s section 212 is very much like the dicta in Minor v. Happersett (sp?), in that it sets out the bare minimum of how nationality is passed on, but doesn’t preclude other means. However, unlike Minor, he does explicitly state that there are other modes, and the tradition of one of the modes he identifies is the tradition the US arose from.

              • As I read section 122 de Vattel might have recognized a French born Obama as a Frenchman with a Kenyan father. I don’t think de Vattel could have imagined the ease with which travel was possible in the mid 20th century when he wrote “In a more confined sense, and more agreeably to its etymology, this term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth. In this sense, it is justly said, that our country cannot be changed, and always remains the same, to whatsoever place we may afterwards remove.”

                In obiter dicta in the Minor case the court noted that the exact meaning of natural born citizen and the applicability of the 14th Amendment had yet to be entirely defined. There was no need for that court to address it in the case of Virginia Minor since she was born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Of course in Wong Kim Ark the court did that.

              • Ike says:

                Vicklund,

                Sorry, bud, so close butttt no cigar for you. No blessing from Lupin on this?

                After reading that Hodgepodge I decided I’m nominating you in the 2021 Blogger Awards under the category ‘originality’.

                Your problem is still with the French word ‘parens’.

                The French word Parent and sometimes listed in all caps (PARENT) is defined as (Fr) relation and translated as (En) Kinsman. If (Fr) parens which is set in under (Fr) Parent/PARENT was the plural then it would be defined as (Fr) relations. It’s not. Parens is defined in all the dictionaries I’ve checked (now, about 20) as (Fr) pere & mere (Fr for daddy & mommy) and translated over as (En) father & mother (parents).

                On the vast majority, if not all, the (Fr) parens set in under (Fr) Parent/PARENT has a symbol preceding it that signifies a different intent/meaning. I’ve taken that to mean parens was being used to separate ‘pere & mere as a unit’ from the rest of the relatives.

                Here’s 1 example during Vattel’s lifetime (1728) He would of been 14, still in school, studying when this dictionary came out:

                https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=dul1.ark:/13960/t00013r65&view=1up&seq=337&skin=2021

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                Quit acting like the crapweasel.

                I did not blame your party, the party of secession, slavery, segregation and socialism, for taking America into all 4 major war in the last century. Just doing rough comparison of the American fatalities by party for those 4 wars.

                You’re right about Trump, he got it right on the Election fraud. Its cost Americans a lot since that demented pervert, Ol Creepy, took over in January.

              • Nazi sympathizer Ike wrote:

                You’re right about Trump, he got it right on the Election fraud. Its cost Americans a lot since that demented pervert, Ol Creepy, took over in January.

                I figured you would miss it. Go back and reread what Trump wrote again.

                Let’s see, since Biden took office unemployment is down, the stock market is up, vaccinations are way up, and COVID-19 cases and deaths are down. Also, we have a President who is not an embarrassment all over the world and we are no longer wasting billions of dollars and American lives in fruitless wars. Yeah, we are hurting.

                Edited to add: Earlier this year the CBO projected it would take several years for unemployment to reach prepandemic levels and would run above 6% well into next year. Thanks to the American Recovery Act we are now at 4.2%. The latest poll by independent historians ranked Obama as the 11th greatest president ever. Trump is 41st behind Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover.

                You can come on here and spout all the crap you want to from Gateway Pundit and AR15.com but you are only solidifying your place as an ignoramus. Try posting anything anti-Trump or anti-birther at Sharon Rondeau’s cesspool of a blog and see if it gets through moderation.

          • COMALite J says:

            Hey, Ike! I saw your meme before Reality Check removed it for obscenity. Except for the obscenity, how about you address what it really said?

            To refresh memories, it was a meme photo of Obama with this caption (censored):

            Make No Mistake America
            This worthless son of a {censored} is & will
            forever be recognized as the worst
            president in the history of the
            United States.

            Really? Worse than Andrew Jackson who genocided Native Americans? Worse than Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan who made the Civil War inevitable? Worse than what William Henry Harrison almost certainly would’ve been had he not performed one of the greatest acts of defending this nation from a dire danger that any President ever had, by talking a lot at his inauguration speech in the bitter cold, catching pneumonia, and dying in about a month, nearly all of which was spent on his deathbed, unable to do much real Presidentin’ (he saved the nation from himself!)? Worse than Warren G. Harding who had the most scandal-ridden administration then-to-date, including the infamous Teapot Dome scandal, and who said of himself, “I am not fit for this office and should never have been here” (at least he was more honest than Trump)? Worse than Andrew Johnson who was the first to be impeached (and for good reason)? Worse than Herbert Hoover who exacerbated the Great Depression and horribly mismanaged the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927?

            Worse than Nixon, who committed treason to get elected and in so doing kept the Vietnam War going much longer than it would otherwise have been, costing us at least ½ of our casualties there under his treason (you know the Vietnam War Memorial wall? You know that bend in the middle? Imagine if everything else about it [height, length, font size and spacing of engraved names, etc.] were the same except that it just ended where that bend is — that’s what it’d look like without Nixon’s high treason [called out as such by LBJ on a phone call which is available online as digital audio] — he got off scot-free for this, and Watergate was a middle-school prank in comparison)? Worse than Trump?

            Please, do explain, in as much detail as you’d like, exactly why Obama was worse than any and all of those.

            • Ike says:

              Another Obot crackpot showing he is a history lightweight

              Let’s get it right from the start.

              4 major wars in the last century: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam

              DemoKKKraps took America into all 4 of them. Roughly, going on memory:

              640,000 American soldiers killed (4 wars)

              620,000 of them under DemoKKKrap presidents

              Yes, Really! Obama is the worst of all of them. He was connected his whole life with the communists, commie Bill Ayers & his ilk, brought commies & marxists into government, supported commie revolution in America when he was at Occidental college, attended socialist conferences at Cooper Union in New York (those conferences were billed as tributes to Karl Marx), there was the anti-American Reverand Wright church services he attended for many years, he was involed in a socialist party in Chicago called the New Party, brought Black Lives Matter to the White House an encouraged them – they later destroyed some towns & killed cops & white people.

              And that’s just for starters on that piece of marxist dung. If he had his way there wouldn’t be an America. Oh yeah, Lupin feels the same way about America and you Obots support him too.

              The real difference is you got some of it right. Some were bad and never should of been presidents, some were just incompetent and made grievous mistakes, but I don’t think any were anti-American and wanted to see America destroyed.

              Besides Obama wasn’t a legal president.

              • Ike foolishly said:

                4 major wars in the last century: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam

                DemoKKKraps took America into all 4 of them. Roughly, going on memory:

                Actually President Eisenhower sent the first advisers into South Vietnam and began our presence there. The War would have probably ended earlier if Humphrey had been elected but instead Nixon won and greatly expanded the war after committing treason to get the North Vietnamese to delay peace talks. The worst idiocy of all though is Nazi sympathizer Ike bringing up World War II. Would he have had us sit that one out and let Hitler rule all of Europe and a large part of Asia – and maybe North America? You do now that’s what the Third Reich thing was all about don’t you?

                I have heard this childish “four wars” argument made by right wing fools for 40 years. It completely ignores history.

                Funny but you did not mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that W. Bush got us into and what a losing mess they both turned out to be. Thank goodness President Biden extracted us from that mess.

                We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                America’s initial military involvement in Vietnam:

                July 26, 1950 – United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French.

                American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam.

                September 27, 1950 – The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

                American military deaths Vietnam War:

                Under Pres Johnson- 5 yrs – 48,399

                under Prsdnt Nixon- 5 yrs – 21,194

                You’ve swallowed to much false leftist propaganda, and I can only go so far here. Nixon tried to get America an honorable out from the war. In August ’64, the US entered the War on reports of an unprovoked attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. The reports were lies — and Pres Johnson knew it.

                Hilarious! Calling me a Nazi sympathizer when it was your political party where Hitler & his 3rd Reich were getting many of their ideas. They were infatuated with the policies of racist Dem Pres Wilson, Dem Margaret Sanger, Southern Dems & the KKK. Tell me what the 3rd Reich was all about.

                Were the wars in AFganistan & Iraq in the 20th century?

                Right, Ol Creepy got America out, but what did he leave behind? And the Taliban are murdering people daily.

                I’ve already provided you with historical references for natural born citizen.

              • Nazi sympathizer Ike blubbered:

                I’ve already provided you with historical references for natural born citizen.

                You have not provided anything of the kind. We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?

              • Ike says:

                Correction on US military fatalities during Vietnam War
                should be:

                36,756 – under Johnson
                21,258 – under Nixon

              • We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?

              • Ike says:

                “Reality Check says:
                December 4, 2021 at 7:55 pm
                We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?”

                I don’t understand what you’re asking. I’ve searched for the common law meaning of ‘natural born’ to understand it and found nothing.

                If you meant natural born citizen vs natural born subject then I did provide you with a lot of references on that.

              • I don’t understand what you’re asking. I’ve searched for the common law meaning of ‘natural born’ to understand it and found nothing.

                Really? Well let’s Google “natural born” + “english common law” and see how many hits we get? Try 47,300 hits. The top one says:

                Under traditional English common law, a “natural born subject” meant, with minor exceptions, only a person born in English territory. But beginning in the seventeenth century, in a succession of Acts, Parliament extended the meaning of “natural born” to include some persons born abroad to English parents.

                https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1646&context=jcl

                You are either a terrible researcher, a liar or both.

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                Ha! So you manipulated what you were asking. i searched for what you stated, “the common law meaning of natural born”. Instead you did a search for the English common law definition of a “natural born subject”. I have no problem with that aside from your deception.

                Besides the one on the top of your head, what point are you trying to make? I believe I’ve been over all of this with you Obots in the past. You failed miserably then and no doubt will again.

              • Of course you would search for English common law. It was the common law in place when the colonies declared their independence. Most of the colonies and later states officially adopted English common law and general statutes passed by parliament that were in force in the former colonies. These were called the reception statutes. I gave examples of these the other day in this comment.

                At the time the reception clauses were written citizenship was primarily determined by the states. Therefore it was actually baked into the law of most of the states that the English common law definition of natural born was the law of the land for determination of who were citizens of those states. It was the practice in all of the states because the English common law definition for natural born was all that had ever been used in the colonies before and the states thereafter. Aliens were naturalized under the naturalization laws passed by Congress. There were no other types of citizens.

                Later the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that to determine the meaning of terms not defined elsewhere in the Constitution we must look to English common law. Therefore, that is where one would find the definition for “natural born”, not de Vattel or anywhere else.

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                Unbelievable. It’s been 2 years since I 1st pointed out the false misleading statements in your article and you still haven’t corrected them.

                Here’s another false one by you I forgot to add to the list I made earlier today. Paragraph above the subheading ‘Resources’.

                “… no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”.

                Resources:

                Get those corrected then we’ll move on to your ECL even though I already explained it to you. You seem to believe it has some kind of authority over the American presidency – it doesn’t.

              • Get those corrected then we’ll move on to your ECL even though I already explained it to you. You seem to believe it has some kind of authority over the American presidency – it doesn’t.

                I have nothing to correct in my article. You have lost the argument….again.

                The first Americans adopted English common law into their body of law in the colonies and states. The English common law definition for natural born was included in that body of law. It was eventually replaced after the Civil War by the 14th Amendment, which codified the same definition into the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark explained the history of how we determined natural born citizens in the United States based on the rules from English common law until the 14th Amendment was adopted. The 14th Amendment changed nothing in regard to natural born citizenship except it corrected an error the court made in Scott v Sandford, the ruling that allowed states to deny natural born citizenship to formerly enslaved Africans.

              • Ike says:

                Lmao at you spinning. I haven’t lost any argument as of yet, butttt that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Unlike you and some of your fellow traveling pinko Obots who have consistently been wrong on almost every issue – I haven’t. Case in point:

                Woodman trying to spin it that NPR’s African correspondent was talking about Obama’s claimed father being born in Kenya. She wasn’t. She specifically stated in the article, “U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.” Woodman knew it.

                ComaliteJ going about as low as one can get with his claims on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Then you following it up with some more false claims. I couldn’t tell if it was pure ignorance, deceit, or a combination of both by you 2. One would think you 2 would have some knowledge of the Vietnam War.

                There was you and Hughs, a couple real idiots, trying to make subject & citizen synonymous at the state level and the term ‘subject’ in a state constitution being the model for our US Constitution. I think I called it the Lupin Lunacy on steroids.

                Then there was Vicklund, who has since cut & run, trying so hard to cover for the Lunacy from you & Lupin in your article. He spun it every which way he could think of but in the final analysis he couldn’t get around over 100 years of the French ‘parens’ being defined as pere & mere (father & mother) and translated to parents in English.

                I’ve challenged Lupin to take me on over what he claimed: “that (Ike is) factually wrong in every statement he makes above, and in fact he has never debunked anything I ever wrote, just further humiliated himself.” The truth is just the opposite of what Lupin claimed and he went into hiding when I challenged him on it. Dr Con, reluctantly, did finally after 3 years correct some of Lupin’s lunacy on his The translation of Vattel from the French page.

                There are many more, especially in your article, that needs correcting. I’ll do just one more, a funny one. In your article where you’re promoting Woodman’s book, you’re calling him a conservative. Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that. That’s an insult to the conservative brand. Woodman is closer to you fellow traveling liberal weenie pinko Obots.

                See ya after Xmas, have a merry one!

              • tbfreeman says:

                Now THAT was a fitting tribute to Apuzzo: Camping in a blog’s comments section to crown yourself victorious, nearly five years after President Obama left office after serving two full terms.

            • Ike says:

              tbfreeman,

              Some of it can be attributed to Mario. Early on reading Mario’s blog helped me to get a better understanding of the ‘birther issues’ regarding your dear leader Obama. A number of times over the years he joined in a debate and further explained points some of us on the patriotic Right were making to your side, the anti-American Left. I know I appreciated it. So some of my numerous victories here should be also credited to Mario.

              A young lady that follows me around at times (she’s taken an interest in politics, especially the ‘birth issue’ problems with Obama. And yes, I know her personally) claims that there are more than 100 false claims by you Obots since 2019 (it’s the last 4 articles where I left comments). I haven’t checked it out but I did know there were a lot. Some were so grievous that I was shocked when you Obots didn’t correct them.

              • Mario only won in his own mind. In real life he was drubbed in every case he filed and embarrassed in comment streams as he bloviated many of the same tired points you attempt to make. Like you he could not get past the fact that the English common law definition for natural born was what was used in early America when the term was used in the Constitution.

                Of course I documented Mario’s perfect record of losing in the courts:
                https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/birther-attorney-mario-apuzzo-continues-to-rack-up-the-losses/

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                It’s become increasingly apparent over that last 2 yrs that you’re doing everything in your power to avoid correcting the enormous amount of false claims you & your fellow traveling Obots have made. You & some others keep changing the subject around so you’ll never have to face correcting anything.

                Lets correct some of these that have festered, grown and have people confused. Starting with one of the earlier ones in the comment section for: ‘For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.’

                Reality Check says:
                October 15, 2019 at 5:19 pm
                Duckworth never said Obama was foreign born. Try checking your facts. So in 2006 a reporter for the Honolulu Advertiser made a mistake in an article about where Obama was born? It happens.

                I asked you at the time if you actually read the Loren Collins article? Those aren’t my assertions. Collins makes the claim for ‘Born in Kenya’ for Blue State & Yahoo Answers in 2007. Butttt, that’s not all.

                I held back on something to see where it would go as you & Pogue were going spastic.

                It was Loren Collins who made the claim that Duckworth said both her & Obama were foreign born. (para 6):”… a 2006 profile of fellow Hawaiian politician Tammy Duckworth in the Honolulu Advertiser mentioned Obama in passing to say he, like Duckworth, was born outside the U.S. …”

                Read the article again for the 1st time.

              • This crap again? Really?

                Here is what the reporter Will Hoover from the Honolulu Advertiser said in an email when questioned about the Duckworth article:

                The story in question was written on deadline more nearly four years ago. The story was not about Obama, but Tammy Duckworth. I knew little about Obama at the time, other than that he had lived in Honolulu and graduated from High School here. With time running out, I Googled “Obama (and) birthplace,” (or something similar) – and incredibly the first thing I found said Obama was born in Indonesia! Hey, it looked factual (apparently it was from a site trying to discredit Obama’s Hawaiii origins – so much for trusting Google). Anyhow, that’s what wound up in the story. I quickly, and sheepishly, learned otherwise after the story appeared. I believe a correction soon followed… [from his followup email:] I checked our online archives to find the original Tammy Duckworth article. I was surprised to see the article didn’t include the correction I thought would be there. I recall getting calls and emails after the story ran from readers who wanted me to know Obama had been born in Hawaii. Plus, I remember an editor telling me about the error.

                I read the original article and Duckworth absolutely did not say Obama was born in Indonesia, Will Hoover did and he owned up to his mistake in an email to RSOL Phil that I quoted above.

                http://web.archive.org/web/20060207151627/http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html

                “Very rarely have I met a more impressive person than Tammy Duckworth,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in an article the day before she announced her candidacy Dec. 18. “She just has the poise and exudes the type of character that I think would make her an astounding public servant.”

                Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai’i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have “a kama’aina connection.”

                Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.

                Notice where the quote from Duckworth ends and then the author Will Hoover states incorrectly that Obama was born in Indonesia. So if you quoted Loren Collins correctly (and of course as usual you provided not one single link for your shit) then Loren was wrong and would be the first to admit it.

                [Edited: Loren did not say what you claim he said. You pulled a small section out so you could imply that Loren said something he did not say. That is you just doing the usual dishonest shit you do.. Where is this mysterious young lady who “follows you around”? Maybe she could enlighten us all?]

              • Wow what a dishonest festering piece of dog sh|t you are Ike. Let’s look at the entire paragraph from Loren Collin’s article “The Secret Origins of Birtherism” on his Bullspotting blog:

                There are a handful of instances prior to 2008 of someone saying in print that Obama was born in Kenya. A 2007 posting at Yahoo Answers asked “If Obama bin HUSSEIN al Barack was born in Kenya, how can he run for president in the US?” In a July 2009 editorial, the National Review suggested that the allegations of a Kenyan birth for Obama began with a commenter at a Democratic blog, The Blue State, who wrote on July 23, 2007, “Obama isn’t technically a northerner either since he was born in Kenya… I like a more international view of the world so I like the fact he was born somewhere else.” A Kenyan newspaper from 2004 casually referenced the “Kenyan-born Obama,” while a 2006 profile of fellow Hawaiian politician Tammy Duckworth in the Honolulu Advertiser mentioned Obama in passing to say he, like Duckworth, was born outside the U.S., but the Advertiser put his birth in Indonesia, not Kenya.

                So Collins was merely giving an example of an article published in 2006 that incorrectly stated that Obama was born in Indonesia. Loren never claimed Duckworth said that nor did Loren claim himself that Obama was born in Indonesia. How do we know it was incorrect? Because we have the author’s own words he made the mistake, not Duckworth. How god damned dishonest and stupid can you be? You claim that I have made many false claims on this blog and your best example is an entirely dishonest misreading of two different articles?

              • Ike says:

                This is hilarious. Either way I go I get attacked by you Obots.

                2 years ago you & Pogue spent a dozen postings caliing me a liar for claiming what you are now.

                Lets let that simmer. I was hoping a certain someone would show, had some questions I wanted to ask him. So now I’ll cut to the chase of what I’m really up to:

                Dr Conspiracy made a false claim on that Canadian website: “Free Republic is the same forum where the original Born in Kenya rumor started way back in 2008.” You Obots have turned that into an Urban Legend.

                Your claim on October 1, 2019 at 12:15 pm: There is no need for me to correct anything. What Kevin Davidson posted is correct. The “Obama was born in Kenya” rumor did start at Free Republic in the spring of 2008 as Loren Collins has documented.

                It’s a Big Lie to say the Born In Kenya rumor started at Free Republic in 2008, or say it was started on March 1st 2008 by a poster named Fars on the Free Republic website.

                On October 5, 2019 at 10:55 pm you tried to claim the Born In Kenya by Blue State & Yahoo Answers in 2007 were my assertions. They’re not – Collins made those claims. That’s why on the following day (the 6th) I asked you if you had actually read his article.

                That is just part of more misleading & false claims you Obots have made with the Collins article.

              • tbfreeman says:

                Apuzzo would be proud: Obsessive comments-section camping to bicker over insignificant minutia while ignoring that President Obama won every eligibility challenge while serving two full terms to the office to which he was duly elected.

              • Yes, he is pathetic. He is pretending that if there were some ludicrous speculations that Barack Obama was foreign born made in 2006 or 2007 that somehow gives credibility to some pile of Birther dog shit. Ike is still lying and claiming Tammie Duckworth said Obama was born in Kenya. Ike keeps referring to Loren’s articles but he obviously has not read them. This is what Loren said about the pre March 2008 references to Obama and his birth:

                The common thread between all of these pre-2008 anecdotes is that they don’t allege any sort of cover-up. They don’t argue that Obama’s Hawaiian birth is a lie; they just assume he was born in Kenya, as though that were the accepted truth. In other words, these aren’t the claims of conspiracy theorists; they’re the mistakes of people who don’t know how to check Wikipedia. It’s the equivalent of someone assuming George W. Bush was born in Texas (he was born in Connecticut), or John Kerry in some elite East Coast hospital (he was born on a Colorado army base).

                Perhaps most infamously, the author bio that was used by his literary agent said Obama was “born in Kenya.” But that error was first discovered and publicized by Breitbart.com in 2012, and thus played no role in the development of the rumor, four years earlier. Birthers frequently cite it as justification for their beliefs today, but literally no one referenced it in 2008 or before as a reason for their doubts.

                This is what Loren says about the FARS post on FREEP:

                A considerable amount of online searching turned up no instances of this sort of conspiracy-tinged rumor about Obama’s birth prior to this March 1 posting. Which leaves this as the earliest documented instance of someone claiming Obama was secretly born outside the U.S. And most of the essential elements of the central Birther rumor are here, from the immediate flight to Hawaii for registration to the Presidential eligibility concerns. FARS acknowledges that Obama’s public biography states that he was born in Honolulu, and he alleges that the public biography is false. He actively endorses the idea of Obama’s family covering up a foreign birth, and as such, is proposing a conspiracy theory. All that is lacking is a specific reference to Kenya as the location of that foreign birth.

              • tbfreeman says:

                Well, I’m convinced: I won’t ever vote this Obama feller again because of what Loren said about an article said about what Duckworth said in 2006.

              • Ike says:

                tbfreeman,

                I won’t venture to guess what Mario would of thought of my many corrections (victories) of Obot false claims.

                What you’re doing here has become known as “Classical Obotism”: when it’s apparent there is no way to overcome the factual statements provide by the Mighty Ike’s Truth Machine, move on to calling the facts insignificant trivia (info of little importance or value).

                You shouldn’t use the word “duly” when characterizing Obama’s years in the White House of We, the People. Your Dear Leader was never in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the American people. It was obvious there was some kind of Affirmative Action in place or the courts along with the Lamestream Media would of argued for the American people to have standing. Instead, we watched the coverup starting as early as the Berg Lawsuit in 2008 where Obama was given a free pass on providing the claimed physical proof (proof according to FactCheck) that was supposed to be good in any court of law & was less that 1 day away by FedEx Air.

                As just 1 example of majority, which is ironic, comes from from the write-up of Woodman’s book on Amazon. Keep in mind this is several months after the release of what is known to be a substitute long form copy: “a Gallup poll showed that fewer than half of Americans are fully convinced that Barack Obama was actually born in the United States.”

                Even Obama & Dem Senate leader Schumer admitted what was so obvious:

                “….the people of the United States deserved to know where you were born, where you’re a citizen from, and what’s going on, why you hiding your background?” “It’s actually a disgrace to all the voters, all the citizens of our country…”
                ~ Attorney Berg

                “You know, I think what’s important if you’re running for president is that the American people know who you are, what you’ve done and that you’re an open book….”
                ~ Obama

                “When you’re running for president, everything should be public – including your full medical records. I believe in a right to privacy. But when you’re running for president, which is such an important job, the need of the public to know supersedes it.”
                ~ Senator Charles Schumer

                As I said in Oct 2008 after the ruling in the Berg lawsuit: “the Fix is In”

              • What an liar and an idiot you are Ike. Obama won by a majority in both of his elections and won large electoral majorities. He maintained good approval ratings for 8 years. Trump on the other hand hand got fewer popular votes than Clinton and was never above water in approval ratings. What a pathetic liar you are. Truth Machine? What a laughable joke.

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                It’s what I’ve come to expect from you, you continue to make no sense. Obviously truth & you continue to be at odds with each other. From what I’ve observed since 2012 dealing with you you seem to just go off making claims with fully not understanding the issue. Consequently it continues to destroy Obot credibility which I’m more than happy to always point out. ~ Grin

                Though overall I don’t agree with Loren Collins, he definitely does not state what you and Dr Con are claiming. You brought the Collins article to back you up and it doesn’t. Collins does not say the Born in Kenya rumor started on Free Republic. Like I said, that’s an Obot Urban Legend & it was made up by dishonest & deceptive people like you. It looks like without realizing it you confirmed it with last sentence of your reply: “All that is lacking is a specific reference to Kenya as the location of that foreign birth.”

                Collins claims that the rumor Born in Kenya started on a website outside of Free Republic four days later on March 4, 2008 by an Alan Peters on the blog called Ruthless Roundup.

                Where Collins gets it wrong is claiming the rumor showed no signs of having existed prior to February 29.

                RC: “Ike is still lying and claiming Tammie Duckworth said Obama was born in Kenya.”

                You just can’t help yourself. With some people lying becomes a way of life.

                All anyone has to do is go to your article that you filled with false claims, ‘For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.’, then scroll down to Ike says: October 16, 2019 at 6:16 am. There I’ve posted the complete interview in the Honolulu Advertiser of Duckworth by Will Hoover. Then stressed it was me that pointed out it was the reporter not Duckworth who stated Obama was foreign born. You’re welcome!

              • Collins is saying that the FARS post on Free Republic was the first time someone suggested an active conspiracy by Ann Dunham to travel to Hawaii to register Barack’s birth shortly after a foreign birth. Subsequent blog posts in the next month added the born in Kenya lie to that. BTW, let’s take in how completely moronic this whole idea was. A young single mother without means traveled with child late in her pregnancy to Kenya or Indonesia to give birth then rushed back to Hawaii to register the birth as if it were in Hawaii. How freaking stupid would one have to be to suggest such a preposterous story? The only people stupid enough to buy that were Birthers.

                I cannot find the Schumer quote (because the moron Ike never, never links anything) but I believe he was talking about Donald Trump’s failure to release his tax returns and medical records, neither of which he has yet to do. Ike you need to start walking around with a big “H” for hypocrite tattooed on your forehead. President Obama released birth records, tax returns and detailed health records. He was duly elected, duly confirmed, duly sworn in and served two terms marked by with complete honesty and no scandal. Trump on the other hand was elected with foreign assistance. told over 30,000 lies. Had dozens of his staff indicted, was secretive and entirely incompetent. Then he refused to accept a clear loss add acted in seditious manor to try to urge his Vice President to overturn the results of the will of the people while his supporters invaded Congress in an attempt to stop the counting of the electoral votes. Anyone who supported this including you I consider to be a vile human being and a seditious traitor.

              • Ike says:

                “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
                ~President Donald J. Trump

                Trump: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

                Trump: “No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

                “Trump did nothing to stop it” seems to be the phrase of the moment. But despite what the Dems and Cheney claim, he did attempt to both prevent and stop violence — both before Jan. 6th when he requested that 10,000 National Guard be sent to the Capitol (which was rejected) and after the violence broke out. Cheney claimed that “for 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act.” But, as the Wash. Examiner clarified, “The 187 minutes, which Cheney refers to frequently, is apparently the three hours and seven minutes between the portion of Trump’s speech in which he called for his supporters to “peacefully” protest at the Capitol and the 4:17 p.m. video telling them to leave. During that period, contrary to Cheney’s assertion, Trump tweeted twice — once, at 2:38 p.m., saying, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” and then, at 3:13 p.m., saying, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” Finally, at 4:17 p.m., Trump posted a video telling the rioters, “You have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order.”

              • Trump:

                ‘We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen’

                ‘If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore’

                ‘We are going to the Capitol’

                Of course the last one was a lie too. Trump had no intention of joining them. He did not call out the guard. He gleefully watched the Capitol being overrun on TV. If you still support this piece of filth you are a seditious traitor yourself.

                Trump also said:

                Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.

                States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.

                Now we know that John Eastman, one of Trump’s attorneys had hatched a plan for Pence to actually deny the counting of the valid electors to attempt to steal the outcome. This is exactly what Trump was talking about.

                Yes Trump inserted a few platitudes about peaceful protest in his speech and tweets but his message was clear. What kind of president resorts to Twitter for spewing more platitudes when the seat of power of the US is under siege by your supporters and all sorts of mayhem is being committed? Why Donald Trump did because he incited it and was having an orgasm over it.

              • Of course now we can see Sen. Schumer was talking about McCain but you wanted us to think he was referring to Obama because that’s the kind of liar you are. That’s why in the future when you quote or make a claim you had better supply a link.

              • Ike says:

                Ike the Nazi loving, racist and seditious piece of shit wrote:

                If there was ever a great example to show how a sleazy weasel operates out of the gutter this is it with you. What is it about Schumer’s opening line, “When you’re running for president, everything should be public …”, you don’t comprehend? Are You claiming Affirmative Action for Obama only? I know in the past you claimed it was racist to ask Obama for his records because he was black, but it wasn’t for the 2 white guys, McCain & Romney.

                You’re really looking bad here. Almost a bad as you looked on the Aitken Bible.

                The further & further you Obots go away from the truth, the more hate you’ll have for anyone telling it.
                (rephrasing a statement attributed to Selwyn Duke)

                It looks like you’re just about ready to cut & run like the rest of your fellow Obots. I expected it

              • Schumer was referring to McCain’s pathetic release of his medical records. McCain made documents to a small number of reporters who were only allowed to view them for a short period of time and take notes. McCain had a history of skin cancer and picked an incompetent air head boob, Sarah Fucking Palin, to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Therefore his medical records carried more importance than those of the extremely healthy Barack Obama who released what candidates had typically released. Trump on the other hand was a fat slob who had a complete idiot of a doctor release nothing but fantasy.

              • I said that asking for Obama’s birth records was racist because it had never been done for any presidential candidate in history before Obama. Not one not ever. It is the equivalent of asking a black man “Show me you papers boy”. I wish Obama had told racists like you Ike to go fuck yourself, which every Birther deserves to have said to them and still does. So on behalf of him go fuck yourself you racist and seditious piece of shit.

                PS: It is my blog so I am not going anywhere you racist and seditious piece of shit. I only let you post because you continue to show what morons Birthers are. DId I say you were a racist and seditious piece of shit?

              • Ike says:

                Ike the Nazi loving, racist and seditious piece of shit wrote:

                How sweet it is! Thx to RC I get to chalk up another victory.

                RC: “I said that asking for Obama’s birth records was racist because it had never been done for any presidential candidate in history before Obama. Not one not ever.”

                This is why I previously said there is a cognition problem with RC. Cognition refers to “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses”. As you can see memory would play a vital part in cognition.

                Presently showing as week 292 at Birther Report. My reply to RC when he made the same false claim then: “In 2000 Bush released an assortment of his records, and again in 2004 he released more than 700 additional pages of documents. The Pentagon followed that releasing more records prior to a court ordering the release of more.
                [RC: Where is the link? Birther Report is not a reliable site. I do not see a birth certificate listed and who cares about the number of documents? No one ever asked any other presidential candidate in history to provide a birth certificate. So what was different about Barack Obama? I will wait for you answer. Birthers asking for Obama’s papers was motivated by racism. That’s clear.]

                Did you catch that? Bush on his own released more than 700. I don’t recall the American people being called racists for wanting to see Bush’s records. They have a right as Democrat Schumer stated:

                “When you’re running for president, everything should be public – including your full medical records. I believe in a right to privacy. But when you’re running for president, which is such an important job, the need of the public to know supersedes it.””

                Do you get it?: the need of the public to know supersedes it.

                I also went through it again on Girbil Report with RC and some other Obots. It’s buried in the one article that went over 700 comments: ‘Explosive: Arpaio Admits Awful Accusation’.
                [RC: Again you are too lazy to link and we know it will be crap anyway.]

                If I was RC I would ASAP make an appointment with my doctor to arrange for a cognition evaluation. I have argued with RC on an assortment of subjects/issues since 2012. I didn’t notice it back then but as time moved forward it became apparent there is a serious problem.

                [If you were RC you would be capable of rational thinking and wouldn’t be making a complete ass of yourself on a daily basis. But you are not RC, you are Rainbow Ike so you do.]

              • tbfreeman says:

                President Obama’s duly winning two elections and serving two full terms is significant; it is the strongest evidence that your beliefs and obsession with minutia are just wrong. Even if you’ll never admit that to yourself.

                What is insignificant is your belief that President Obama wasn’t duly elected, as no one cares what you believe. And you don’t speak for anyone other than yourself.

                So, yes, Apuzzo would be proud of this onanistic display over literally nothing.

              • Could Rainbow Ike be Mario’s love child? Asking for a friend.

              • Ike says:

                For RC,

                https://www.intensedebate.com/profiles/ramboike/18

                A couple things to point out:

                When the American people requested Bush43’s military records that included; his birth certificate, driver’s license, school records, and a list of ALL family members for security reasons.

                If you read through some of my comments you’ll see that I also went after the Birthers on some of their claims. I didn’t care then & I don’t care now where where you stand politically, my agenda has always been to find out what the truth is on any subject/issue. Too bad you Obots have shown you haven’t programed yourselves the same way I have.

                I will go through that more than 700 comment article on Gerbil Report but not right now.

              • See how it works if you publish links? We can go to that link and see how Doctor Conspiracy destroyed you. Here is how he explained the Bush records:

                We were talking about college transcripts. Bush refused to release them, then a reporter got hold of them and published.
                As always, you change the subject rather than concede the point.

                See what he did there? He nailed your for doing exactly what you are doing here, changing the subject when you get caught.

                Don’t feel bad because you were not the only one Doc owned at BR.

              • Ike says:

                RC, as usual you make no sense.

                There was no big deal over Bush43’s college records.

                Provide the link to what you’re claiming.

                The problem with Bush’s records was the possibility of missing some required military drills. The Killian papers on it turned out to be phony. CBS ended up firing Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes over it. The reason was that Mapes knew before they broadcast the claims they were phony.

                I remember owning you & Dr Con at the same time on Gerbil Report. ~ Grin

                Have you corrected the grievous error Dr Con made on that Canadian website since you now know the Born in Kenya rumor didn’t start on Free Republic?

              • Seditionist supporting Ike wrote:

                Have you corrected the grievous error Dr Con made on that Canadian website since you now know the Born in Kenya rumor didn’t start on Free Republic?

                Loren presented evidence that the “Obama was foreign born and it was covered up” meme may have led almost immediately to the Obama was born in Kenya rumor. As a matter of fact Loren speculates that the same person may have been responsible for both. How is this a “grievous error? I see nothing to correct. If you have a beef with what Doctor Conspiracy wrote then take it up with him. It is completely irrelevant to anything however.

                How about admitting you were wrong on the translation of “parens”? That seems a bit more substantive to me.

              • Ike says:

                RC, you’re the gift that keeps on giving. I’m chalking up another victory or two here on this.

                [RC: And in exactly what courts have your ideas prevailed? What expert backs your false claims?]

                You made all that up about me changing the subject, and Dr Con destroying me on this, and of course you conveniently don’t have a link to it.
                [RC: It is at the same link you already provided. But since you cannot seem to follow it I will add it here.
                http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/06/video-donald-trump-spokeswoman-katrina.html#IDComment1022731634%5D

                Here’s the truth which I didn’t have completely right. After 17 years memory didn’t retain it all. There were those on the radical, treasonous Left, comparable to today’s Obots, making smearing accusations that Bush missed movements, was a slacker, and was able to avoid service in Nam because his dad was a US Congressman. It wasn’t true.

                It led to Dan Rather on CBS News broadcasting that CBS had proof with documents that back up their claims. Documents that were known as the Killian Papers. It was all lies. It eventually came out that Rather’s producer of the story, Mary Mapes, had known since 1999 that Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam. It became known as Rathergate & CBS fired the whole crew over it. Here’s an article from Bernie Goldberg that covered it.

                https://bernardgoldberg.com/a-lost-fact-in-the-rathergate-mess-part-1/

                There actually was a slacker that followed Bush into the White House in 2009. That slacker claimed during an interview on ABC on September 7, 2008 that he signed up with Selective Service when he graduated High School in 1979. Selective Service was reactivated by Jimmy Carter in July of 1980, over a year after Obama’s 1979 high school graduation date. At the time of his graduation, neither Obama, who was only 17 at the time, nor any of his high school classmates, would have been required to register for the still inactive Selective Service program. ~~ Lmao

  4. Ike says:

    November 4, 2019 at 1:36 pm- Ike: It’s readily apparent RC is in over his head claiming citizen & subject are synonymous.

    November 4, 2019 at 5:25 pm- RC: Another red herring by the troll Ike. I did not say citizen and subject were synonymous.

    November 5, 2019 at 3:10 pm- Ike: Paragraph directly above subheading “Resources” in your article. I quote you (RC): “…there is just no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”.”

    November 5, 2019 at 4:39 pm- RC: I did not say the terms citizen and subject were the synonyms…

    RC: Birthers have elevated de Vattel to the status of sainthood but the reality is that there is just no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”.

    RC: We don’t need to really(sic) on “Dude” as you call him to understand that “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were the(sic) synonymous…

    • You took my comment out of context. Here is my complete comment:

      Another red herring by the troll Ike. I did not say citizen and subject were synonymous. I said that they were often used interchangeably in the early days of the republic. Mr. Hughes provided multiple instances that proved my statement. People obviously knew the difference. However, they had been used to referring to themselves as subjects for the better part of their lives so naturally old habits are hard to break.

      Ike needs to stop wasting everyone’s time and post specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Remember, we already know that the Supreme Court said for that for determining the meaning of terms used in the Constitution not otherwise defined we must resort to English common law. “Natural born” was one of those terms and the founders clearly knew what it meant. If they changed it then Ike should have no problem at all providing proof yet he continues to dodge that fundamental question. Why?

      I never said “citizen” and “subject” were the same thing. What I said is that “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” were used as synonyms by the founders before and after the adoption of the Constitution in laws and in citizenship proclamations. This fact is indisputable and well documented by C. J. Hughes in comments here and elsewhere. .

      Since you brought it up though we are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Mario Apuzzo also made such a claim but could never back it up.

      • Something I did not include in my article on the definition of natural born citizen but also supports my case are the “reception statutes” passed by several of the colonies after they declared their independence from Great Britain. A commenter named Joey documented these at Doc C’s blog:
        https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2016/02/the-occasional-open-thread-lame-duck-edition/#comment-372154

        Joey March 2, 2016 at 1:56 pm (Quote) #

        Adrien Nash is obviously unfamiliar with the “reception statutes” that were passed by the former British Colonies as they declared their independence from British rule.

        Open main menu

        A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts pre-independence English common law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states have either implemented reception statutes or adopted common law by judicial opinion ( there was only partial reception by Louisiana which also partially adopted the Napoleonic Code and Spanish (Roman ) law)

        Examples From Reception Statutes

        Reception Provision of Massachusetts Constitution, 1780, ch. vi, art. vi.:
        “All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved in the Province, Colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution.”

        Reception statute of New York, 1786 (based on provision of NY Constitution, 1777, art. 35):
        “Whereas by the Constitution of this state it is declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the Legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on [19 April 1775] (except such parts thereof as are by the said Constitution abrogated) shall be and continue the law of this state; subject to such alterations and provisions as the Legislature of this state shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. And whereas such of the said statutes as have been generally supposed to extend to the late colony and to this state, are contained in a great number of volumes.” [a commission is established to gather together and put before the legislature the appropriate statutes].

        Reception statute of Virginia, 1776:
        “And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

        Reception statute of Pennsylvania, 1777:
        [[section]]1. “Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.

        [[section]]2. Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, as orders taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the king of Great Britain, or his successors, or oath of office; and so much of every law or act of general assembly aforesaid, as acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former governor of the said province, or any other person whomsoever as governor; and so much of every law or act of general assembly, as ascertains the number of members of assembly in any county, the time of election and the qualifications of electors; and so much of every law or act of assembly aforesaid, as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no coerce or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”

        Reception Provision of the Delaware Constitution, 1776, art. 25::
        “The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this state, shall remain in force unless they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Constitution and the declaration of rights, & agreed by this convention.

        The District of Columbia was not a state. The Constitution gave Congress complete legislative authority in all cases whatsoever, but when Congress provided the law for the District’s courts, it backed away from mandating its own style of reception, showing the degree to which Congress felt that it should rely on the law of the states, the degree to which the federal government was regarded as different in nature from state governments.

        Reception statute for the District of Columbia, 1801

        “. . . the laws of the state of Virginia, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the District of Columbia, which was ceded by the said state to the United States, and by them accepted for the permanent seat of government; and that the laws of the state of Maryland, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the said district, which was ceded by that state to the United States, and by them accepted as aforesaid.”

        So not only did the early Americans not say they were changing the meaning of natural born they proactively adopted English common law that had been in place and that would have included citizenship rules from the same.

      • COMALite J says:

        Allow me to quote the Word of God the same way Ike and others of his ilk quote you and other “Obots” (only I’ll be a bit more honest than him and at least properly indicate mine omissions with horizontal ellipses [“…”]):

        • Exodus 8:10: “…there is no God….” (CEV & Msg)
        • Exodus 9:14: “…there is no God….” (EtR)
        • Deuteronomy 3:24: “…there is no God….” (EtR, GNT, MB, TB)
        • Deuteronomy 32:39: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, CPDV, CT, D-R, GB99, GNT, Great, JST, JUB, Knox, ISV, LITV, MCB, Msg, NIRV, NJB, NLT, SLT, & WE)
        • Deuteronomy 33:26: “…there is no God….” (CT, GB99, & MCB)
        • Ⅰ Samuel 2:2: “…there is no God….” (Exp, GB87, GB99, & NCV)
        • Ⅱ Samuel 7:22: “…there is no God….” (AmpR, BST, CJB, CPDV, CSB, CT, ERB, ESV³, EtR, Exp, HCSB, ISV, LEB, LITV, LSV, MEV, MCB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV², NLB, NLV, NRSV³, NWT2013, PHBT, RSV³, UBv1.9, Voice, & YLT)
        • Ⅱ Samuel 22:32: “…there is no God….” (EtR, LB, PHBT, & PLT)
        • Ⅰ Kings 8:23: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, CJB, Great, ISV, JST, Knox, LB, LITV, LSV, PHBT, SLT, Voice, & YLT [Msg has this at verse 22])
        • Ⅱ Kings 1:3: “…there is no God….” (ACV, AFV, Amp, ASV, BST, CSB, Exp, ERB, ERV, ESV³, Exp, GB87, GB99, GNT, HCSB, ISV, JPS, JST, LB, LEB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NET, NKJV, NIV², NLV, NRSV³, NWT2013, PLT, RSV³, SLT, & UBv1.9)
        • Ⅱ Kings 1:6: “…there is no God….” (ACV, AFV, AmpR, ASV, BST, CSB, Exp, ERB, ERV, ESV³, Exp, GB87, GB99, GNT, HNV, HCSB, ISV, JPS, JST, LB, LEB, MEV, NAB, NASB, NCV, NET, NKJV, NIV², NLV, NRSV³, NWT2013, PLT, RSV³, SLT, & UBv1.9)
        • Ⅱ Kings 1:16: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, CJB, CT, EtR, GB87, GB99, GNT, Great, Knox, JUB, LEB, LITV, LSV, MB, MCB, Msg, NJB, NLT, NRSV³, NWT2013, PHBT, Voice, & YLT)
        • Ⅱ Kings 5:15: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, CPDV, D-R, LITV, LSV, HCSB, & YLT)
        • Ⅰ Chronicles 17:20: “…there is no God….” (BST, CJB, CSB, ESV³, Exp, HCSB, LB, LEB, LOT, MEV, NAB, NCV, NET, NIV², NLV, NRS, PHBT, PLT, RSV³, UBv1.9, & YLT)
        • Ⅱ Chronicles 6:14: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, ISV, JST, LB, LITV, LSV, PHBT, PLT, SLT, & YLT [Msg has this at verse 12])
        • Ⅱ Chronicles 32:15: “…there is no God….” (Thompson)
        • Ezra 9:13: “…there is no God….” (Thompson)
        • Job 12:6: “…there is no God….” (LB, PHBT, PLT)
        • Psalms 10:4: “…there is no God….” (ACV, Amp, ASV, BBE, CJB, CSB*, Darby, ERV, ESV³, Exp, GB87, GB99, GWT, ISV, JPS, LB, LEB, LITV, LOT, LSV, NASB, NJB, NLV, NRS, PHBT, PLT, RSV³, UBv1.9, & Voice)
        • Psalms 14:1: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BBE, HCSB[“God does not exist”], Msg, JPS [present in JPS1917], JST, LITV, SLT[“No God”], & YLT[“God is not”] [Knox has this in 13:1, CSB*])
        • Psalms 18:31: “…there is no God….” (EtR, LB, PHBT, & PLT)
        • Psalms 53:1: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BBE, CJB, HCSB[“God does not exist”], JST, LITV, Msg, & SLT[“No God”] [JPS has this at verse 2, Knox has this in 52:1])
        • Psalms 71:19: “…there is no God….” (EtR)
        • Psalms 86:8: “…there is no God….” (BBE, Exp, GNT, NCV, & Wycliffe)
        • Proverbs 30:1: “…there is no God….” (Msg)
        • Isaiah 44:6: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, EtR, GB87, GB99, GNT, Great, JST, Knox, LITV, MCB, Msg, NKJV, NCV, & SLT[“no God”])
        • Isaiah 44:8: “…there is no God….” (KJ1611, KJ21, KJV¹, JUB, PLT, & TMB)
        • Isaiah 45:5: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BST, CEV, CJB, EtR, Exp, GNT, Great, GWT, ISV, JST, Knox, Msg, NASB, NCV, NJB, NLT, SLT[“no God”], & Voice)
        • Isaiah 45:6: “…there is no God….” (AmpC, BBE, BST, GWT, NHEB, NET, & Thompson)
        • Isaiah 45:14: “…there is no God…” (ASV, BST, CPDV, D-R, ERV, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV¹, Knox [Isaias], LEB, & NASB)
        • Isaiah 45:21: “…there is no God….” (AmpC, ASV, D-R, Darby, ERV, JPS, JUB, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV¹, Knox [Isaias], MEV, NET, NHEB, NKJV, NIRV, NIV², & TMB)
        • Isaiah 46:9: “…there is no God….” (D-R & Wycliffe)
        • Daniel 3:29: “…there is no God….” (BB, CT[1535], GB87, GB99, Great, MB, & MCB)
        • Micah 7:18: “…there is no God….” (EtR, Exp, LB, NCV, PHBT, & PLT)
        • Judith 6:2: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
        • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:2: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
        • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:5: “…there is no God….” (D-R, GNT, KJ1611, KJV, & NRSV [NAB has this at verse 4])
        • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:13: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
        • Ⅱ Esdras 8:58: “…there is no God….” (KJV, NRSV³, & TMB)
        • Mark 12:29 : “…there is no God….” (Knox)
        • Luke 16:21 : “…there is no God….” (JST-LDS)
        • Ⅰ Corinthians 8:4: “…there is no God….” (Amp, ASV, BBE, CSB, DLNT, ERV, ESV³, Godbey N.T., Goodspeed N.T., HCSB, JBP N.T., LEB, MNT, Mounce R-I N.T., Msg, NAB, NET, NHEB, NIV², NJB, NRVS, RNT, RSV³, TCNT, UBv1.9, Voice, WBGNT, Webster, Wesley N.T., Weymouth N.T., Williams N.T, & Wycliffe [for obvious reason, this is the only appearance of that phrase in the DLNT, Godbey, Goodspeed, JBP, MNT, Mounce, RNT, TCNT, WBGNT, Wesley, Williams, Worrell, & Weymouth])

        ¹ The KJV references (other than the two in the Apocrypha) are also found in the AKJV (American King James Version).
        ² The NIV references are also found in its variants including the NIV-UK and TNIV (Today’s NIV).
        ³ The ESV, NRSV³, and RSV references are also found in their variants including Anglicized, Catholic, and Anglicized Catholic versions (NRSV Apocrypha reference [Sirach/Ben Sira 26:5] found only in Anglicized and/or Catholic).
        * Uses “…there’s no God…” (contraction) instead of “…there is no God…”

  5. Northland10 says:

    It is always a sight to see when some American with no legal training knows more about French and French word choices by a Swiss philosopher in the 18th Century than a French attorney who speaks the language daily (both French and legal language).

    I wonder if that American also knows Vattel said that weapons should be restricted and a single sovereign/prince is better than a democracy. If the Law of Nations is our law, well then, I guess the entire book should be, unless the idiot American believes he can pick and choose.

    • Ike was and continues to be the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      • Ike says:

        To the racially obsessed RC (Race Card),

        When are you going to correct the ignorance & deceit you’ve been peddling over your just your last 2 articles. There’s low IQ people like yourself, Northland, Comalite and Vicklund that reads your lies & believe it – its gotta stop. What really stands out is your lying revisionist history on the Vietnam War. I don’t think you have any idea how devastating was the cover-up of the lies by Dem President Johnson. Here’s a clue: it cost over 58,000 American lives & over 3 million Vietnamese lives. There’s more but you’ve been given enough. Quit telling lies about things you and your fellow traveling Obots are clueless about. As the Gipper would say, “you Obots know so much that isn’t so”.

        You still haven’t corrected none of your deceptions I pointed out to you 2 years ago in your article ‘For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.’

        1st- The title of your article is deceiving
        2nd- Scroll to the paragraph that starts with ‘Another English translation …’ Last sentence is false: … there are tons of evidence that the term natural born citizen was the equivalent of the English natural born subject.
        3rd- Under ‘A French attorney posting under the name Lupin’. (a) and (b) are misleading. Vattle used the term ‘parens’ not ‘parents’. Then in (c) you’ve made another incorrect claim. There is no footnote for ‘mother’ in the 2nd edition. That devious clown Lupin found 1 for ‘mother’ in a 20th French edition in the middle of the next century and duped yas with it. Everyone still laughs about that.

        When you get those corrected we then can move on to make some other corrections.

        Looks like Vicklund cut & run. It was expected.

  6. tbfreeman says:

    It is so fitting that comments to an article about Apuzzo’s death are not about Apuzzo, but his stolen brainfart that impressed only birthers.

    As if Apuzzo had nothing to offer the world.

    • Even at that Apuzzo probably got more mentions here than he did at the only remaining Birther hideout run by Sharon Rondeau. There were the obligatory butt kissing comments by a few fans like Kerchner but that was about it.

  7. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    When last we saw Rainbow Ike, he was busy spinning, desperately deflecting to hide the fact I had caught him in an obvious lie regarding paren/parens/parent/parents. Unable to support his false claims, his only resort is to stick his fingers in his ears and shout “LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.” He insists on using a single entry by a single author, but refuses to admit to the existence of any other authority, not even that same author on the very same page he extolls as the end all and be all of the French language.
    Ike claims that “in the final analysis he couldn’t get around over 100 years of the French ‘parens’ being defined as pere & mere (father & mother) and translated to parents in English.” But in reality, it is Ike who can’t get around the fact that the same source he uses has for over 100 years also defined “parens” in the other ways. In the French section, translated as “relatives” in numerous examples, including “proches parens”->”close relatives”, “parens maternels”->”maternal relatives”, and “parens paternels”->”paternal relatives.” In the English section, “friends,” “relatives,” “kinfolks,” “kindred,” and “kinred” have all been translated as “parens.” Hilariously, the hand symbol he claims means that a spelling exclusively means something is used for the “Friends (or Relatives)” subentry for the English word “friend” and translated as “des parens.” The logical extension of his argument is that Abel believed that the English word “friends” was not the plural of the English word “friend” but instead referred to the father and mother. This is clearly ridiculous, and the conclusion we must draw is that the hand symbol merely signifies that a word can sometimes have a particular meaning, not always. (Also, note that the “or” in the parentheses is in italics, meaning that the subentry is not the phrase “friends (or relatives)” but rather “friends” or “relatives” can be translated as “des parens”).
    But the coup de grace is the official dictionary of the French Academy. The third edition was published in 1740, and is the authoritative dictionary for the French language, in a way Mirriam Webster could only dream of. This is the edition de Vattel would have been raised on, and it is uncertain that he would ever have needed to use Abel’s French-English dictionary. Here is the entry for “parent,” with examples in italics and my translation in parentheses (or if you prefer, parens)

    PARENT, ENTE. substantif. Qui est de meme famille, qui est de meme sang, qui touche de consanguinite a quelqu’un. (Who is of the same family, who is of the same blood, who is immediate family to someone) Parent paternel. (Paternal relative) Parent maternel. (Maternal relative) Parent au troisieme degre. (Relative of the third degree) C’est mon parent. (That is my relative) Il est de mes parens. (It is from my family) De quel cote etes-vous parens? (From which side of your family?) Ils sont proches parens. (They are close relatives) Ils sont parens eloignez. (They are distant relatives) Elle est ma parente. (She is my relative) Il a fait office de bon parent. (He served as a good relative) Il n’a aucuns parens. (He has no relatives) Ils ne sont ni parens ni amis. (They are without family or friends) Faire une assemblee de parens. (Make a family gathering) Un avis de parens. (The advice of family)
    On dit prov. (we say proverbially) Un bon ami vaut mieux qu’un parent. (A good friend is better than a relative) Et on dit dans le style familier. (And we say in the familiar style) Nous sommes tous parens en Adam. (We are all relatives in Adam)
    Parens, se dit aussi, De ceux de qui on descend. (is also, The ones from whom we descend) Il est ne de parens illustres. (He is born of an illustrious family)
    Il se prend quelquefois plus particulierement pour le pere & la mere. (It is understood sometimes more particularly for father and mother) Il s’est marie sans le consentement de ses parens. (He married without the consent of his parents)
    Quand on dit, (When we say) Nos premiers parens, (Our first parents) on entend ordinairement parler d’Adam &d’Eve. (we ordinarily intend to speak of Adam and Eve)

    This can be found on page 264 at the following link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionnaire_de_l_Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7oise/tBTJWhJMpjkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=parens Of note, in the main entry for “parent” 8 of the 14 entries uses “parens” as the plural of “parent.” And the biggest find is that “parens” is only sometimes understood to mean mother and father.
    If the French Academy says you are wrong about the French language, you have no recourse. They are the final, absolute authority.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      My formatting got borked, let me try that again without the blockquote:

      PARENT, ENTE. substantif. Qui est de meme famille, qui est de meme sang, qui touche de consanguinite a quelqu’un. (Who is of the same family, who is of the same blood, who is immediate family to someone) Parent paternel. (Paternal relative) Parent maternel. (Maternal relative) Parent au troisieme degre. (Relative of the third degree) C’est mon parent. (That is my relative) Il est de mes parens. (It is from my family) De quel cote etes-vous parens? (From which side of your family?) Ils sont proches parens. (They are close relatives) Ils sont parens eloignez. (They are distant relatives) Elle est ma parente. (She is my relative) Il a fait office de bon parent. (He served as a good relative) Il n’a aucuns parens. (He has no relatives) Ils ne sont ni parens ni amis. (They are without family or friends) Faire une assemblee de parens. (Make a family gathering) Un avis de parens. (The advice of family)
      On dit prov. (we say proverbially) Un bon ami vaut mieux qu’un parent. (A good friend is better than a relative) Et on dit dans le style familier. (And we say in the familiar style) Nous sommes tous parens en Adam. (We are all relatives in Adam)
      Parens, se dit aussi, De ceux de qui on descend. (is also, The ones from whom we descend) Il est ne de parens illustres. (He is born of an illustrious family)
      Il se prend quelquefois plus particulierement pour le pere & la mere. (It is understood sometimes more particularly for father and mother) Il s’est marie sans le consentement de ses parens. (He married without the consent of his parents)
      Quand on dit, (When we say) Nos premiers parens, (Our first parents) on entend ordinairement parler d’Adam &d’Eve. (we ordinarily intend to speak of Adam and Eve)

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      The Friends (or Relatives) entry is on page 689 of the same edition Rainbow Ike linked to earlier. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=dul1.ark:/13960/t00013r65&view=1up&seq=689&skin=2021&q1=friend and the Kinred/Kindred/Kinsfolks entries are found on page 774.

      • Ike says:

        Vicklund,

        You should give it up. Lupin cut & run because he knows you’re wrong, and RC is only capable of being your cheer leader.

        There’s just no way for you to get around the word parens being defined for over 100 years as père & mère (that’s father & mother in English).

        In all those translating dictionaries it shows from the French side parens following the word parent. Parent being defined as relation in the French and translated over to the English as kinsman. Never does it show parens being defined as relations (plural).

        I provided you with dictionaries that shows it during Vattel lifetime as parens being set in under parent and defines as père & mère only. Then later near the end of the century it was moved out from being set in under parent and define as père & mère only. No change.

        I believe those French translators knew what they were doing. If they wanted parens to be the plural of parent they would of defined it as such when they had it set in under parent during Vattel’s lifetime.

        Les Naturels, ou Indigènes ſont ceux qui ſont nés dans le pay, de Parens Citoyens.

        When the American founders read that they knew they found what they were looking for, and the rest is history.

        The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

        [RC: Except they followed and adopted English common law. Also there was no translation of de Vattel available in 1787 with those words. What an idiot and liar you are.]

        • Did it ever occur to you Ike that Lupin had better things to do than deal with a dishonest little piss ant like you about something you know nothing about? Besides that the issue is over. President Obama duly served two terms and won over 200 ridiculous lawsuits without even putting up a defense in a large majority of them.

          You lost. We won.

          Any person born a citizen will be eligible to run for president in the future and serve if elected and if they meet the age and residency criteria.

          • Ike says:

            You’re right.
            [RC: You’re correct and you should have stopped there. But being Ike you had to go on and prove what a whiny loser you are.]

            Marxist Obama, along with all his pinko operatives and brown nosers like you had a 8 year winning streak, while America our country, and we on the patriotic Right lost. Now we have Obama’s 3rd term with figurehead Creepy Joe running point, and again we on the patriotic Right are losing.

            That’s a poorly worded concession speech: “Did it ever occur to you Ike that Lupin had better things to do than deal with a dishonest little piss ant like you about something you know nothing about? Besides that the issue is over.”

            You’re right it’s been over, but it was entertaining reading Vicklund’s spin. I gave him an “A” for effort, and to think I’m holding more back on parens that I don’t need to use. Of course Lupin is on the run and won’t face me mano a mano. When he did in the past he always lost.

            You’re right again, no defense was ever really needed in the majority of the cases. Just use Affirmative Action when needed and rule Americans didn’t have standing. Guaranteed embarrassment free outcome for your Dear Leader.
            [RC: Actually standing was only one of many reasons these cases lost. Some cases were decided on the merits and some judges did opine that what you espouse on Minor, de Vattel etc. is completely wrong.]

            {RC: I forgot to add that Mitch McConnell who is about as mainstream conservative as you can get proved my point that conservatives are all racists when they let their guard down. Mitch said

            “If you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans.”]

            You know Ike, after the complete ass whipping I opened up on you yesterday on English common law I almost, for just a few minutes, felt sorry for you. But I quickly got over it. 😆 ]

            • Ike says:

              That’s pure nonsense on the Turtle. I can see how the racially obsessed gutter snipers would of screamed racism from the way they concoct things in the bigoted minds, but it’s not true. What he is saying is that the % of black votes are roughly the same as the national average. Case closed – end of story – dumb asses.

              [RC: I would expect you to miss what McConnell said and the significance. You have shown over and over again your reading comprehension is at the grammar school level.]

              The only ass whipping you opened up was on anyone trying to claim you had a brain that functioned higher than plant life. This is just more proof as to why I say you and addled brained Creepy Joe have a lot in common. 10 years ago after doing multiple dozens of hours of research on common Law in early America I posted on a number of sites (Obot sites included) what I found. I read maybe as many as 6 political science professors on the subject, but 2 stood out that got my deep prolonged interest: William E Nelson from the New York University of Law & Donald S. Lutz from the University of Houston.

              To cut to the chase: You’re right to say that the Common Law system that started in early colonial America did originate in England. The 3 main concepts that the colonists started with were: The need for an orderly social system (government), the idea of a limited government, and a government that would serves the will of the people. Blackstone described the ECL as a collection of unwritten maxims and customs upon which judicial decisions were being made. Did you get that, unwritten? It was one of his primary reason for writing his Commentaries. As it went the early colonist had no precedents written down to start from. They had to develop their own common law based on their own experiences in a land over 3,000 miles away from England. Another factor that shows the detachment from England was colonial lawyers in the earlier part of the 18th century traveling to England to learn about ECL. Only 1 place was teaching it at that time called The Courts of the Inns. The major Universities like Oxford were teaching Roman Civil Law. The reason being that ECL had become a mishmash, a jumbled up confused mess.

              So when you claim ELC think common law starting in early colonial America.

              • McConnell made a Freudian slip but there is a reason that it is called a Freudian slip. We got a glimpse of the conservative soul.

                And even at that McConnell was not correct. Black voter turnout is consistently lower than white turnout and the new Republican voter suppression laws are are tailored to make it even harder for the poorer working class to vote. That fraction includes a disproportionate number of African Americans.

                On English common law and natural born citizen…

                You can babble all you want but you just cannot get around what the Supreme Court said in WKA and other cases. There is now a robust body of case law that anyone born a citizen, 35 years in age, and a resident of the US for 14 years is eligible to serve as president and have been since the grandfather clause effectively expired.

                The bottom line Ike is that you do not believe in our democracy. You would casually throw out the votes of the majority in three presidential elections because they did not go your way. In many ways that embodies what conservatives today are all about. They know the changing demographics and views of younger Americans are going against them. In a choice between conservatism and democracy they are choosing conservatism.

              • Ike says:

                [RC: Oh boy! You have given me so much crunchy goodness with these stock conservative BS talking points! I will have more to add later. It is easier just to do it in line like this.]

                I understand I’m going above your capabilities here but Fraud’s research was discredited decades ago.

                McConnell meant that Black voters turn out at rates equivalent to Americans overall. In recent elections, that’s been true. Black turnout exceeded the national turnout rates in 2008 and 2012 before aligning with them in 2016 and 2020.

                [RC: We all know what McConnell meant to say. However, why did he say what came out? It was a window into his soul. If you read deeper into the article you would see that white turnout consistently outpaces black turnout. And let’s see what was different about 2008 and 2012? Hmmm. So why why ar we making it harder for people to vote if everything is wonderful? I think it doesn’t take any imagination to figure out what the Republicans are up to. They never want blacks or groups that vote Democratic to have an equal opportunity to vote.]

                What this shows besides you being stupid is that blacks have overcome something similar to Stockholm Syndrome that your side of politics, the Demokkkrat Left, have used to control blacks with. Why do you on the Pinko Left continue to address blacks like they are incapable? Your ilk has been doing this for centuries. The time has come to put an end to it.

                On English Common Law I gave you the historical truth, and of course I have more that I could of added on Colonial Common Law. What I have said: according to a number of sources which includes university law reviews, that after the Constitutional Convention, many of the states did use Blackstone’s Commentaries to further help them expand their laws so long as it didn’t obstruct in any way their own state laws & constitution and federal laws & US Constitution.

                I’m not trying to get around what the Supreme Court said in WKA and other cases.
                [RC: Bullshit. Of course that is exactly what you are doing. The court in WKA spent a great amount of words to explain that our concept of natural born citizenship came from English common law and that the 14th Amendment merely codified that concept in the Constitution so that not future court could rule as the racist Taney led court did that black people did not count as people.]

                This is an area on the issue where I’ve mostly relied on what others have said with a few exceptions. There are multiple reasons but a couple are I’m not attorney, never schooled in law and my understanding of what resulted in Berg v Obama. I will say that from what i’ve read that Gray made numerous errors in his research with his opinion in Wong Kim Ark. And, lets not forget we are dealing with opinions in these court cases.
                [RC:Ike is playing his usual dishonest word games here. “Opinion” is a legal term in this case. An opinion given by the Supreme Court is the law of the land until and unless it is changed by the Supreme Court or Congress (unless such a change would be deemed to be unconstitutional). You may have read that Gray made errors in his opinion but no part of the WKA ruling has ever been overturned. There are many sour grapes articles out there on WKA written by jingoistic conservatives.]

                The bottom line: We don’t have a Democracy.
                [RC: I have heard this meme a lot lately coming from disgruntled Trumpers who want to over turn our representative democracy. Whether you call it a representative democracy or a republic does not matter one bit. The point is that Obama was duly elected twice and Biden once under the federal and state laws in place at the time of the election. Trump is a lying sack of shit when he says he was robbed. Of course he is a lying sack of shit on everything he does not like or when he is caught being himself.]

                The Constitution in Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

                Benjamin Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

                Alexander Hamilton: “We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy.

                Thomas Jefferson: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

                John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

                You might want to change your last sentence.

                [ RC: No, I do not need to change anything. Our representative democracy was crafted in such a way to prevent tyranny by the majority and the government over the minority and the people in general. It is those very safeguards that Trump and his minions were trying to subvert in the aftermath of the 2020 election.]

                The Mighty Black Knighty has a question for you:

                [RC: It is hilarious that you would link this as you are the poster child for the Dunning -Kruger effect. ]

              • Ike says:

                [RC: Once again Ike makes claims with no links. However, it matters not. In the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2020 that he wants to illegally over turn all the laws were follwed at the state and federal level and the correct candidates were confirmed and sworn in to office.]

                The United States is most accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic, aka a Republican form of Government. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.

                Countries like Russia & China call themselves representative democracies. Was calling America the same a Freudian slip by you? ~Grin

              • Ike says:

                Many years ago (Bush43 was president) I was involved in a debate on yahoo gaming with 3 others. It’s where we could & often did lock the game table down for privacy. On one of those occasions we researched & debated over what was the proper term for America’s form of government. My original belief was because America was listed as part of the Western Democracies that we had a form of Democracy called a Constitutional Republic. One of us found (it wasn’t me) some material that stated America more accurately was a Constitutional Federal Republic.

                On a random search:

                https://ar.usembassy.gov/education-culture/irc/u-s-government/

                https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+proper+term+for+America%27s+form+of+government&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS930US930&oq=what+is+the+proper+term+for+America%27s+form+of+government&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i22i29i30.24493j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

                I see you have linked Jonathan Turley’s website. Why don’t you ask him what is correct. If you don’t get any results there check with Eugene Volokh.

        • COMALite J says:

          On January 14, Ike said:

          I was hoping a certain someone would show. I had some questions I wanted to ask him.

          Was that me, perchance? If so, ask away. Sorry I was away. Holiday and end-of-year and beginning-of-year stuff.

          On this comment that I’m Replying to, you said:

          I believe those French translators knew what they were doing. If they wanted parens to be the plural of parent they would of defined it as such when they had it set in under parent during Vattel’s lifetime.

          Les Naturels, ou Indigènes ſont ceux qui ſont nés dans le pay, de Parens Citoyens.

          When the American founders read that they knew they found what they were looking for, and the rest is history.

          The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

          As RC stated in an insert, there was no translation of de Vattel available in 1787 with those words. I stated it in this thread way back in mid-October: no English translation that used the words “natural born citizen” was available in 1787, nor for a decade thereafter.

          Even a person only barely familiar with French, only enough to know that it, like English, is an Indo-European language so they’d share some roots derived from a common ancestral tongue (such as Latin), would see that “Citoyens” is French for “citizens.” So, how many times did de Vattel use the word “Citoyens” in your quote from him? Just once, right? Towards the end, right after “Parens” showing it to be relating to that word.

          Now, how many times does “citizens” appear in the (faulty) English translation (that was still a decade into the future as of the Constitutional Convention in 1787) that you quoted? Twice! Now how can that be? How can an English sentence that uses the word twice be an accurate translation of a French sentence that only uses it once? You don’t have to be an expert linguist super-familiar with French to realize that much.

          The correct English translation, and the only English translation available in either of the two printed versions available as of 1787, read:

          The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

          Nowhere is “natural-born citizens” in there, yet that is the phrase used in Article II of the Constitution. The Framers couldn’t possibly have gotten that from that sentence or any other of de Vattel’s. He never said nor wrote that: not in Belgian French and not in English. No English translator did either until a full decade after they put that in the Constitution!

          I’m not sure if you were in the threads, but in other article threads on this blog I’d posted actual scanned pages of all three translations from around that time: one well before 1787 published in London, one published in the USA in early 1787 (would just barely have been available to them), and one published a decade later in the USA in 1797. Only the latter says “natural-born citizens.” Both of the earlier ones, the only ones available at the time, say “indigenes.”

          I’ll disagree with Reality Check on one thing: I don’t think you’re necessarily a racist. I think that you may very well have a different motive for so desperately trying to hold onto this despite the enormous evidence against your positions here.

          I ask you now to swear, in the name of the Holy Ghost (falsely swearing on the Holy Ghost constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is the one sin that can un-save even a saved Christian even under Dispensationalist beliefs), and answer these questions as Jesus commanded when He said, “But let thine communication be, yea, yea [yes], or nay, nay [no], for more than this cometh of evil.”

          • Yes or No: Do you consider yourself a Christian? (Before answering, also read Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26. Oh, and Revelation 22:12−15 [key verse 15] and note that this is two chapter after 20:15 — what does that imply about the people spoken of in 22:15, including the very last part?)
          • If “Yes” to the previous: Do you believe that Christianity should rule the USA?
          • If “Yes” to the first: Do you believe that the Republican Party is more truly Christian than the Democratic Party?
          • If “Yes” to the first: Do you believe in “the Rapture,” and in particular that it happens before the Second Coming of Christ?

          I have my reasons for asking.

          • That is a very good analysis of how de Vattel’s treatise could not have been the source of the meaning for natural born citizen as used in the US Constitution.

            I’ll disagree with Reality Check on one thing: I don’t think you’re necessarily a racist. I think that you may very well have a different motive for so desperately trying to hold onto this despite the enormous evidence against your positions here.

            I am employing Occam’s Razor to come to my conclusion. When Ike (and the other Birthers) demanded that Barack Obama provide more documentation of his birth than any previous candidate Republican or Democrat in history, then falsely called the documentation he provided fraudulent, then invented another condition for eligibility, and then calls him boy at every opportunity the most likely motivation for this deep hatred is racism. Most Birthers are Republicans and dislike all Democrats but they never resorted to such tactics before Barack Obama became the de facto nominee of the Democratic party in 2008. I am not alone in reaching this conclusion.

          • Ike says:

            COMAlite: “On January 14, Ike said: I was hoping a certain someone would show. I had some questions I wanted to ask him. Was that me, perchance? If so, ask away. Sorry I was away. Holiday and end-of-year and beginning-of-year stuff.”

            No need to apologize, you weren’t missed. I can now add you with the others Obots to the Lupin Lunacy.

            COMAlite: “As RC stated in an insert, there was no translation of de Vattel available in 1787 with those words. I stated it in this thread way back in mid-October: no English translation that used the words “natural born citizen” was available in 1787, nor for a decade thereafter.”

            One of your major malfunctions is believing anything RC says. He has no credibility. Over the last 10 years he has destroyed it all by becoming one of the most prolific purveyors of false claims and malicious smears against anyone that’s not in lockstep with his farLeft marxist ideology. Don’t believe me? Ask RC if the Confederation Congress of 1782 approved, authorized, and recommended the Aitken Bible to the inhabitants of the United States. That’s just one of dozens I could use as an example.
            [RC: Just why should we give a shit about the Aitken Bible? The point is there is not and never has been a state religion in the United States.]

            What you & your fellow Obot dummies don’t understand is that an English translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations was never really needed. French had become the international language replacing Latin more than a century prior to the colonists going to war against the British Empire to gain their freedom. It was the diplomatic language between nations/governments. America’s earliest revolutionist in the 1760s understood ‘Les Naterals’ meant ‘the naturals’. In context it was read as ‘the natural born citizens are those born in the country to parents who are citizen’.

            Sometime late in the 17th century (1600s) the colonists started learning the French on a large scale. Also having those Boyer French-English dictionaries helped. Here’s one of two books that’ll give you some insight on how the matter progressed, Boyer is mentioned on pg22:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=wKmeIqN4dYYC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=French+taught+in+1700s+America&source=bl&ots=obP0bPMA_W&sig=ACfU3U2VWMrMleTpufidYiJQz1cQRozAyQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5wIKbn9_1AhWZkokEHc-3CzcQ6AF6BAgvEAM#v=onepage&q=French%20taught%20in%201700s%20America&f=false

            Using Jesus’s name in your lies, and you know you’re lying, shows what a despicaple person you are. Any integrity you had left after your smears of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall is now all gone. On the Truthfulness Scale you’re now at zero.

            I have a lot more but 1st let see if RC will let this through his Moderation. RC is a Speech Nazi. You didn’t know he’s had me under continuous moderation since April 2020, did ya? He has been editing some of my comments/replies. Some have never showed.

            [RC: I gave you a timeout for breaking the rules by using racist slurs describing our former president and slandering me and other commenters on this blog]

            • Ike says:

              [RC: Just why should we give a shit about the Aitken Bible? The point is there is not and never has been a state religion in the United States.]

              It goes to your credibility. For years you spewed lies about the Confederation Congress’s endorsement of the Aitken Bible here on your blog, also on Birther Report, and Gerbil Report. On all three I was attacked by you and other Obots with malicious lies & smears for telling the truth.

              Your 2nd sentence shows what I’ve been saying: “like Biden you’re experiencing cognitive decline”. I thoroughly went over this with you & some other obots several years ago on Gerbil Report. I provided documented proof with my claims: Starting with the Jefferson administration religious services were held in the federal buildings in Washington DC till about the end of the Civil War and the state sponsored religions ended near the end of the 1870s (about 90 years after the Constitutional Convention ~ Grin). I also provided a document/article showing all the colonies sponsoring religion and how some continued on as they became states.

              [RC: I gave you a timeout for breaking the rules by using racist slurs describing our former president and slandering me and other commenters on this blog]

              You’re using spins on the truth to cover for your overwhelming obsession with race. Probably not all, butttt the vast majority of times I was countering the racial obsessions by you and other Obots like your racially obsessed buddy, Northland, with mocks & taunts. From about May 5th to May 20th you two lied and smeared your asses off on your ‘Remember this?’ article. You even had to spin it (change the subject) on Diamond & Silk to keep from dealing with the truth. Anyone with an average IQ who is honest and done the research will tell you and Northland I’m telling yas the truth on the my boy/your boy idioms. Ice-T of Law & Order SVU fame will agree with me & so will Eric Holder, Obama’s AG.

              Here’s Ice-T doing a Car Shield ad. This is one of two running in the Texas Gulf Coast-Galveston-Houston area for more than a year now. The other has Ice-T introducing Mr Bigg, an early innovator of Hip Hop as “my boy, Mr Bigg”.

              • Clueless Ike does not understand that when a black person uses boy or even the n-word in a non-pejorative way it is not the same as Clueless Ike using it against a black person in a demeaning and pejorative way.Then consider that follows years of Birthers asking the same black man to prove he was born in the USA and spreading all sorts of falsehoods about him that they knew were false. You wanted some examples? No one saw him at Occidental College. He attended as college a foreign student. He approved a bio saying he was born on Kenya. He used a stolen social security number. He and his wife lost their license to practice law in Illinois. Obama is a communist. He was trained by the CIA. He is a Muslim. All of these are filthy lies.

                Even years after the same black President left the office to which he was duly elected and re-elected, served two full terms, and an he left with high approval ratings and high marks from historians I might add, the same racist Birthers refuse to accept his legitimacy not because of any facts but because they continue to lie about his eligibility. Instead they worship a lying, dangerous fool who while claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him was actively executing a scheme to steal it for himself.

              • Clueless Ike:

                It goes to your credibility. For years you spewed lies about the Confederation Congress’s endorsement of the Aitken Bible here on your blog, also on Birther Report, and Gerbil Report. On all three I was attacked by you and other Obots with malicious lies & smears for telling the truth.

                What a liar you are Ike. I just searched through the comments and found I had made exactly two four* short comments where I mentioned the Aitken Bible. One in 2014 and another over a year later to merely note that NBC had pointed out what a bullshit argument you had made. You just keep making yourself out to be the idiot don’t you?

                • I found another two in the same comment stream where I did not mention the Aitken Bible but was referring to the conversation.
              • The comments I am referring to were left on this article:

                Why Lyin’ Carl Gallups may be the worst birther in the world – Part IV

                It was fun to go back and read NBC’s devastating comments in which he ripped Ike’s arguments to shreds. It was not just NBC, others completely embarrassed Ike who was trying to argue that Christianity is the state religion in the US. This is also an opportune time to plug a very good book that NBC linked there:

                Liars for Jesus

              • Ike says:

                RC, I thank you for linking to the Tuttle-PartIV article. This is a prime example of the point I’ve made about the mode of operation/technique you Obots have always used. Because of your particular situation I don’t expect you to understand but others will easily see what I’m talking about.

                Everything I claimed can be found in the congressional records. So it wasn’t me you Obots were at war with, it was with the Library of Congress, the largest library in the world, its records and its Bible Collection:

                https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bibles/other-bibles.html

                NBC and the others you refer to did not do what you’re claiming (but I don’t think you understand that). Never did I say that Christianity was the state religion in/of the United States. What I did claim was the colonies sponsored christianity and some continued to do so after they became states. The last 2 to do so ended in the 1870s.

                There were 2 main issues that NBC & I had an intense discussion about.

                1- Did the Continental Congress in 1777 instruct its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles?

                2- Did the Confederation Congress of 1782 approve & recommend the Aitken Bible to the inhabitants of the United States?

                I found NBC to be an intelligent person but he was in a losing position trying to spin around what is solid documented proof in the congressional records. That’s why he cut & run. He has been gone for years.

                The people who are really a disappointment and lack integrity are those Obots that could help you out on this and haven’t. This is really sad. It has been 8 years and you still don’t get it.

              • 1- Did the Continental Congress in 1777 instruct its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles?

                No, while they may have instructed the committee to look at it (due to a shortage of Bibles in the colones caused by the Revolution) they never actually voted to import anything. As NBC told you then:

                The problem for the religious right authors who claim that the Bibles were imported is that, although this motion passed, it was not a final vote to import the Bibles. It was a merely a vote on replacing the original plan of importing the type and paper with the committee’s proposal of importing already printed Bibles. In other words, they were only voting on what they were going to be voting on. The vote on the motion was close – seven states voted yes; six voted no. A second motion was then made to pass a resolution to import the Bibles, but this was postponed and never brought up again.
                No Bibles were imported.

                2- Did the Confederation Congress of 1782 approve & recommend the Aitken Bible to the inhabitants of the United States?

                Yes, they passed a non-binding resolution in 1782 but they provided no funding.

                Now maybe you can answer these?

                How many Aitken Bibles did Congress fund to be imported and how many were actually imported?
                What did Aitken ask for and what did he actually receive from Congress?
                Why should we care?
                Why does it matter that the Library of Congress contains copies of the bible along with thousands of other religious books?

                Again, the Constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion. As far as the law is concerned Christianity holds no special place in our society over any other religion.

              • This is a well written and unbiased blog post that should put this Aitken Bible nonsense to bed.
                Revisiting the Aitken Bible

              • Ike says:

                RC: Then consider that follows years of Birthers asking the same black man to prove he was born in the USA and spreading all sorts of falsehoods about him that they knew were false.

                From the 1st law suit that I believe was Berg’s case in the Pennsylvania court Obama refused to bring proof of his claimed birth in the United States. Instead he hired Bob Bauer of Perkins Coie, an international law firm, to represent him so he wouldn’t have to provide the proof. How much did that cost Americans?
                [[RC: It cost him nothing you lying piece of shit. The Democratic campaign had a retainer with Perkins Coie to handle campaign legal matters. This was an insignificant bump in the road. Obama was not required to produce anything. The case failed long before discovery.]

                Just prior to the Berg case employees from the FactCheck Org. went to Obama’s Chicago office and photographed what was called his shortform birth certificate and showed photos of the bottom of the certificate where it stated very plainly it was evidence in any court of law. So why didn’t Obama use it as his proof? Asking that question at that time got me smeared by many in a forum as a racist for asking that question. after Obama wouldn’t bring the proof the Judge dismissed the case claiming the American people didn’t have standing. That’s when I said the Fix is In – Affirmative Action.

                Over the following 34 months and numerous law suits Obama nor his high priced law firm never did take what his brown-nosing minions were calling the proof.

                [RC: Obama was never required to produce anything because the Birther cases were complete horseshit. None made it to discovery because the Birthers filing them, like you, were morons.}

                RC: No one saw him at Occidental College.

                is RC having a ‘Biden Moment’ and confusing Occidental with Columbia. There were reports by prople saying that no one remembered him at Columbia. i think Wayne Allen Root was one. At Occidental Obama joined the Marxist group that was proposing Commie Revolution in America.

                [RC: Pardon me for getting confused on one of dozens of Birther bullshit lie after ten years. I was not sure when I wrote that other than it was bullshit. As I have shown on this blog Root and Obama are both listed on the Columbia Senior Day program except the liar Root’s name is misspelled. https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/more-proof-barack-obama-graduated-from-columbia-university-in-1983/. Root was a nobody until Obama was elected then he decided to capitalize using morons on the right eager to consume any bullshit lie he could make up about Obama. (Ike raises hand.} ]

                RC: He approved a bio saying he was born on Kenya.

                Yep. According to an interview of Acton of Obama’s book agency, Acton & Dystel, the non-jocks approved their bios.

                {RC: That’s not proof he approved it. The author said it was her mistake. You are again a lying piece of shit.]

                RC: Obama is a communist.

                A lot of people have claimed that. I see him as a marxist, and a Pinko, who is someone who is sympathetic to the worldwide communist agenda.

                [RC: So who gives a shit what “some people think”? That includes you who I have shown is a lying piece of shit.]

                RC: He is a Muslim.

                From the beginning Obama claimed “Islam is a religion of peace” which is a Big Lie.

                https://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/27/rosen-obamas-claim-that-islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-is-a-fantasy/

                Ed Klein: In my three-hour interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright in November of 2011, he said Barack Obama knew a great deal about Islam, was steeped in Islam and understood Islam from his childhood. But, in fact, he knew little of Christianity and that Wright taught Obama how to accept Jesus without denouncing his family and friends in the Muslim community. But when I asked Wright if he converted Obama to Christianity, he said “I don’t think so.”

                [RC; Ed Klein wrote a hit piece of a book. Who gives a shit? Besides. Obama had publicly repudiated Rev. Wright by this time so why do you believe his word even if you believe Klein did not twist Rev. Wright’s words? Obama was a wonderful president, loving husband and good father. So do you believe the liar, serial adulterer and cheat Trump is a Christian? I assume you do. A liar like you cannot actually call himself a Christian can you?]

              • COMALite J says:

                (Replying to the wrong comment because nesting has gotten so deep that the Reply link for the correct comment doesn’t show up. At least I got the right person.)

                Ike, I accept your apology for how you worded that. I admit to being not completely correct about Truman (RC also corrected me about that). And yes, Johnson did the Gulf of Tonkin which was the proximate cause of our involvement in Vietnam.

                I still think that Ho Chi Minh wanted an independent Vietnam, perhaps with a communist economy but under a Constitutional democratic republic government instead of a dictatorship. That of course is something our corporations could not allow, but we’re getting very far afield from Birtherism, the subject of this blog and post.

                From your postings, it seems to me that you want Obama to have been illegitimately President not because of the facts, but because he (temporarily) thwarted the Christian Nationalist takeover of the USA (thus your fascination with the Aitken Bible). His being black has little to do with that. Am I right about that?

                Please answer the four questions I asked you before. No, I’m not letting you off the hook on this, no matter how many red herring non sequitur diversions you try. The thing you don’t get is that I used to be one of you. I was a very conservative Born-Again (Dispensationalist, which masquerades as “generic” “just plain” “Born-Again” fundamentalist evangelical “Protestantism”) Christian Nationalist for much of my younger life. I know all the tricks your side uses (I used to use them myself) and they don’t work on me.

                To refresh your memory: I ask you now to swear, in the name of the Holy Ghost (falsely swearing on the Holy Ghost constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is the one sin that can un-save even a saved Christian even under Dispensationalist beliefs), and answer these questions as Jesus commanded when He said, “But let thine communication be, yea, yea [yes], or nay, nay [no], for more than this cometh of evil.”

                • №1: Yes or No: Do you consider yourself a Christian? (Before answering, also read Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26. Oh, and Revelation 22:12−15 [key verse 15] and note that this is two chapters after 20:15 — what does that imply about the people spoken of in 22:15, including the very last part?) [I assume Yes on this, but I want to hear it from you.]

                • №2: If “Yes” to the previous, do you believe that Christianity should rule the USA? [For now I assume Yes on this, but I want to hear it from you.]

                • №3: If “Yes” to the first, do you believe that the Republican Party is more truly Christian than the Democratic Party? [I assume Yes on this, but again, I want to hear it from you.]

                • №4: If “Yes” to №1, do you believe in “the Rapture,” and in particular that it happens before the Second Coming of Christ (Pre-Trib or Mid-Trib)?

                Do not post anything else until you’ve given Yes or No answers and nothing else to all four of these four questions in the name of the Holy Ghost. RC, I request that you please allow any such comment through, and moderate any others from Ike until he answers these.

              • I have comments set to nest a maximum of 7 levels deep. It seemed to be a good compromise between nesting comments and having replies that are too narrow. I tried un-nested comments a few years ago but I didn’t like it. On a very busy blog like OCT back in the day you just about have to stay with un-nested comments.

                I have no doubt that Ike dislikes Obama for reasons other than race. He thinks anyone who is politically left of Attila the Hun is a Communist or a Socialist. I am sure Ike is a consumer of unreliable media outlets like right wing talk radio and Fox News. If one wants to pollute their mind with political falsehoods there are no shortage of places to do that. That’s why he believes in falsehoods like a stolen election in 2020 and that there was a conspiracy among judges to quash Birther cases when they were really just following the law.

                I still consider the Birther movement to be racist at its core. I wrote about that here .

              • Ike says:

                Yikes! Feels like I’m being monitored by O’Brien at the Ministry of Love.

                To avoid any theological arguments, I’ll keep it short & simple;

                #1- Yes, but unorthodoxed

                #2- No

                #3- Yes. From a non-political perspective Republicans have shown more consideration for human life than Dems.

                #4- The Rapture is the Second Coming. There is no before.

                To clear some of this Obot lunacy up:

                Originally Obama being black had nothing to do with my positions on anything. It did later at some point and I might have said so at some point. Based on statements he made I started seeing him as anti-white.

                What Obots have lied about from the beginning is calling people against Obama racist. They framed it as how you’re seeing it here on RC’s blog: Obots love Obama – Birthers hate Blacks. Why didn’t they call us who didn’t support Dukakis, Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry, Hillary & Biden racists?

                I know nothing about a Christian Nationalist takeover of the USA. If it’s there I missed it.

                Sometime early in 2008, probably January, I came across sites commenting about Obama (somebody I knew nothing about) being foreign born or a foreigner. Eventually over time it snowballed and much more was being claimed about Obama and some sites were giving historical facts about him. By late summer I had a good size rap sheet on him, and lots of questions that I didn’t see answers to.

                I had/have no fascination with the Aitkin Bible. It became part of my argument against Obots that were trying to discredit Christianity’s importance to the creating/forming of America that starts with the Mayflower Compact. They couldn’t get around the historical facts in the Library of Congress. Here’s from 2 different exhibits at the Library of Congress:

                //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html#obj115

                //www.loc.gov/exhibits/bibles/other-bibles.html#obj13

                Now use your intelligence if you have any. From the thousands of scholars & experts on history/American history that have seen those exhibits, do you think they’d still be there if they weren’t factual? Do you think the Library of Congress is lying to the world?

                Sometime around the Election of 2008, a court case, and media claims from both sides, I took the position that Obama was given an Affirmative Action pass to the presidency. Basically from that point forward it became a matter of being proved wrong.

              • Sometime around the Election of 2008, a court case, and media claims from both sides, I took the position that Obama was given an Affirmative Action pass to the presidency. Basically from that point forward it became a matter of being proved wrong.

                Affirmative action? What a ridiculous conclusion. Obama beat the front runner Hillary Clinton in a tight race for the Democratic nomination because he was smart, a great orator, he connected with people, folks liked his grasp of the issues and agreed with what he was proposing. He trounced McCain in the general election both in the popular vote and in the electoral college. During the financial crises that hit in October in the middle of the campaign he looked more presidential than either the then current President or his opponent McCain.

                I supported Hillary Clinton early on in 2008. She was a known commodity to me. I knew she was intelligent, a good person and thought she would make a very good president. However, as I watched Barack Obama speak and connect with people I became convinced he had a better chance of beating any Republican nominee. I would have been happy with a Hillary Clinton presidency. But no one can dispute that what Obama was able to accomplish. His American Recovery Act saved the economy and got us out of the Great Recession. His health care plan allowed millions of Americans to get health insurance who did not have it before. It allowed sons and daughters to stay on their parent’s health plans into their mid 20s until they were on their feet.

                Now tell us exactly how Obama was helped by affirmative action again? There is no affirmative action for presidential candidates. He met the same requirements as any successful presidential candidate in history ever had. He even went beyond what any previous candidate had ever done and released a certified birth certificate.

                See Ike when you brought in a phony claim of “affirmative action” where it absolutely did not exist that is why I look at you as a racist. You seem to be asking. “Why how could that black guy have ever won? The fix was in!” How about just accepting he was the best candidate in 2008? How about accepting he was eligible because he was a natural born citizen? No, you could not bring yourself to say that could you? You are the one who had to bring in the racially charged claim of “affirmative action”. Affirmative action implies that Obama got to be president because of his race and that were he white he would never have been elected or even allowed to run. Exactly how was that so? Why don’t you just prove that for us? Let us know how Phil Berg’s lawsuit was supposed to work and explain how he had standing to stop the Democratic Convention?

                No you and the other Birthers showed your true “colors” in the way you reacted to Obama as a candidate and a President and it was not pretty.

                The whole Birther thing was complete idiocy. Obama’s campaign did what they needed to in all 50 states to get him on the ballot. He won two fair elections on the merits. Not a single Obama elector was challenged in Congress. He did it without 300 Russian paid trolls in Florida posting thousands of anti McCain posts on Facebook. He didn’t illegally remove classified documents from the White House and take them to his Chicago residence. He never flushed so many documents down the toilets that he clogged them.

                Edit: Just to add, President Obama’s accounting firm didn’t say they were no longer representing him and they cannot vouch for the veracity of the last ten years of his financial statements.

              • Ike says:

                It’s not ridicules. From my perspective at that time Affirmative Action was the only thing that was making sense. We had FactCheck lying on Aug 21, 2008 after they went to Obama’s Chicago Office to see the shortform birth certificate (an abstract): “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” FactCheck seen a substitute that was made in 2007. And as I’ve already pointed out that Obama would never use that shortform in any of hundreds of court cases over the next 2 1/2 years when it states plainly at the bottom it’s evidence in any court of law. What looked corrupt was the judge in the Berg case ruling Americans didn’t have standing after he realized Obama wasn’t going to bring any proof. At the time, because I was subject to the accusations and other smears, the Obama lackies were claiming that shortform was the proof & if you didn’t believe it you were a racist. Sluffy (you know who she is) posted up photos of that shortform in our H2H forum back in 2008 showing that was the proof and inferring if you didn’t believe it you were a racist.

                [RC: Oh no! Not this sh|t again! This is Birther nonsense 101. Your ignorance is once again showing Ike. What Factcheck photographed was indeed an original birth certificate. A certified birth certificate is a document issued by the local authority where the birth occurred. In this case it was Hawaii. In 2007 when Obama obtained a number of certified copies of his birth certificate this was the standard form issued by Hawaii. It could be used for any purpose for which a certified birth certificate would be needed, e.g., obtain a passport, a drivers license, or play in the Little League World Series like the team from Hawaii did around this time. Not one judge in any Birther case required Obama to submit a birth certificate or anything else for that matter.

                In one Birther case in Mississippi, Taitz, et. al. v MDEC the Democratic Party attorneys submitted a copy of the Obama long form certificate (because Orly Taitz who represented McInnish had entered an almost illegible copy into evidence) and also supplied a Letter of Verification from Hawaii that certified that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. This Letter of Verification was as good as a certified birth certificate in establishing the place and time of birth. This is exactly what Obama’s attorneys would have submitted had any judge ordered Obama to produce proof of his birth in Hawaii in 1961. But no judge ordered that so he provided nothing and won every single case and every single appeal.]

                This is about Obama’s credentials to be president, not how he beat Hillary & McCain or any of the other gushing you’re doing over your Dear Leader. BTW, what I said about Woodman not believing all your claptrap – that’s true. Back before he became a liberal weenie and still had conservative values this is what he stated on his blog. Quoting Woodman:

                “I’ve made no secret of the fact that I don’t consider Obama to be a great President. In fact, personally speaking, I don’t even consider him to be a good President.

                I understand very well birthers’ mistrust of Mr. Obama. I personally don’t trust politicians in general, and (being a lifelong conservative) I frankly trust politicians from the Democratic Party even less. And given the reputation and track record of politicians from Chicago, Democratic Party politicians from Chicago are frankly in my least-trusted category.

                [RC: I will not speak for Mr. Woodman but from my correspondence with him he has seen the light on the political parties and which one cares about human life. He has new book coming out that I think you would find worth reading. It is titled How We Fix America. I think he would have a different opinion of President Obama now.]

                Just a couple of days ago, a fellow conservative here in my own town asked me about this, and whether I trusted Mr. Obama. “Oh no,” I replied. “I don’t trust Mr. Obama any further than I can throw him — while he’s sitting in a pickup truck.””

                [RC: So why am I suppose to value his opinion? Especially if he is a fellow moron?]

                RC: “Not a single Obama elector was challenged in Congress.”

                It was great PR for the country. I just wished it would of been a black conservative that was patriotic and didn’t have an ax to grind against whitey.

                [RC: So I was correct. LOL]

                Toiletgate is just one more politically motivated farce by your Farleft political overlords & media masters. Too early to be commenting on Trump’s financial statements till more comes out. Like Russiagate we didn’t learn till almost 2 years later that both Obama & Hillary should be in prison over that.

                [RC: It would seem the special counsel that Bill Barr appointed, I think his name is Durham disagrees with you as no indictments have been filed against either. As to Mazars and Trump what more do you need to know? Mazars said they cannot vouch for any Trump financial statements they have issued for the last ten years, i.e. we think the Trump asshole family lied to us and we would prefer not to be indicted along with them.]

              • I replied in line to your latest bit of ignorance.

              • Looks the like the Robert or is it John Durham thing about Hillary and Obama spying on Trump is a complete crock of —-, a nothingburger, and just not true.

                https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-white-house-spying

                Strangely, there wasn’t a lot of fact-checking going on down at Mar-a-Lago, but the actual reason that the “LameStream” media hadn’t covered the story was likely because, as the Times notes: (1) Sussmann’s conversation with the CIA had already been reported last October (2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]” (3) the special counsel also never claimed the Clinton campaign had paid Joffe’s company and (4) perhaps most importantly, “the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.” In fact, lawyers for the data scientist who helped develop the data analysis in question, say this happened during— wait for it—Barack Obama’s presidency.

                “What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” attorneys Jody Westby and Mark Rasch told the Times. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

                In other words, Trump and company got the whole thing hilariously, mortifyingly incorrect. But fear not: We’re sure they’ll issue a lengthy correction and heartfelt apology to the people whose reputations they impugned—and the ones Trump suggested should be put to death—in no time.

                So Ike, when can we expect a correction and an apology for the load of horse hockey that you left on my blog? Do you believe everything Trump and FoxNews say without fact checking?

            • COMALite J says:

              Sorry for the delay, had other stuff to do.

              Any integrity you had left after your smears of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall is now all gone. On the Truthfulness Scale you’re now at zero.

              I never made any smears about the Vietnam Memorial. My only words about that were in my Reply to you on December 2, in a parenthetical aside when talking about Nixon, in a long list of bad Presidents we’ve had, in answer to your meme (which RC removed for [mild] profanity [for the record, I disagree with his decision on that, but this is his place, his rules]) claiming that Obama was the worst President we’ve ever had:

              Worse than Nixon, who committed treason to get elected and in so doing kept the Vietnam War going much longer than it would otherwise have been, costing us at least ½ of our casualties there under his treason (you know the Vietnam War Memorial wall? You know that bend in the middle? Imagine if everything else about it [height, length, font size and spacing of engraved names, etc.] were the same except that it just ended where that bend is — that’s what it’d look like without Nixon’s high treason [called out as such by LBJ on a phone call which is available online as digital audio] — he got off scot-free for this, and Watergate was a middle-school prank in comparison)?

              I said nothing negative about the Memorial itself. I was using it to illustrate a point about Nixon’s treasonous extension of the war by sabotaging the Paris Peace Accords. I’ll freely admit that you were right about the actual numbers of casualties, and that I was wrong to say “at least ½” or that the wall would’ve ended where the bend in the middle is without what Nixon did. It’s still a lot. From your comment on December 4, two days after mine (slight formatting improvement by me):

              Correction on US military fatalities during Vietnam War should be:

              • 36,756 — under Johnson
              • 21,258 — under Nixon

              By my math, that’s 58,014 total. Nixon’s % of that is about 36.64%, not 50%. Though I did say “casualties” while you’re listing “fatalities” which is not the same thing. Fatalities is a subset of casualties. Casuallties also includes injuries and POWs. I’ll try to find more accurate numbers of those if you’re really interested, but the point of all of this is that I made no smear against the Vietnam Memorial (a phenomenal and tragic addition to our repertoire of national monuments and memorials). I was castigating Nixon for his role in extending that war, costing tens of thousands (even by your numbers) of lives (not just casualties) that otherwise wouldn’t’ve died had he not done that, which he did just to make Humphrey look bad so that he could win the election.

              This is a typical debating tactic: latch on to some aside and take feigned (or real) offense at it, to distract from the main point and vilify your debating opponent when you can’t actually refute the points raised by your opponent.

              Yes, Johnson was also wrong to get us into the war, but the real blame there is on an earlier Democratic President, Harry S Truman. (For the record, I’m not a Democrat. I’m against the concept of political parties, period. I oppose all of them. There is no even indirect allusion to them anywhere in the Constitution nor any Amendments that the Framers had a hand in [up to and including the 12ᵗʰ]). I weep to think what might’ve been if only he’d shown support for Ho Chi Minh back before Ho turned to the communists after Truman rejected his plans for an independent Vietnam, free of both the Imperial Japanese [who’d just been defeated in WWII]) and the French colonizers whom the Imperial Japanese had kicked out. But France wanted their “French Indochina” colony back, and Truman, d@mn him, sided with them even though the French Vichy government had knuckled under the Nazis. It was only after that that Ho turned to the communists for support.

              Think about it: we could’ve had a United States of Southeast Asia with a Constitution modeled after our own (Ho Chi Minh was a big fan of our Founding Fathers, our Declaration of Independence [which he quoted extensively from in his own Declaration of Vietnamese Independence], our Constitution, and its Framers — did you know that?). All he wanted was what our own Founding Fathers wanted: a free nation, independent from any colonizers. Our Founders didn’t beg France or Spain to kick the British out and make us their colonies. They declared independence and fought for and won it.

              Imagine it: The USSA, not as the United Socialist States of America as in some dystopian fiction, but the United States of Southeast Asia, consisting of Vietnam, likely Kampuchea (Cambodia), Thailand (Siam), maybe even Burma and others invited to freely join together, as the thirteen colonies did originally, under a government very similar to ours, and allied with us. Imagine it: not only a great trading partner but a powerful economic and political counter to China in the region, allied with us.

              All flushed down the toilet because the French wanted their colonies back and Truman sided with them. Not only did we lose all of that and over 58k soldiers, but China is now poised to take over the №1 spot from us when they might not’ve been able to with a powerful USSA on their border to contend with. And what did we gain? A few catchy 60s anti-war pop songs. Not exactly a fair trade.

              So, yeah, when a Democratic President is bad, I’ll say so. You may recall that I included Andrew Jackson as the very first in my list of bad Presidents, and he’s considered the founder of the Democratic Party.

              Now that we’ve gotten your little “Vietnam War Memorial Wall smears” diversion out of the way, let’s address a few other things.

              Like it or not, de Vattel did not say “natural born Citizen” nor French words that would properly translate to that. For that to be the case, “Citoyens” would have to’ve appeared twice in the French of that sentence, and it only appears once, towards the end, regarding “parens.” “Les Naturels” translates to “the natives,” not “natural-born citizens,” and besides, the faulty English translations starting a decade after the Constitution including Article II was written made it clear that “natural born citizens” was its translation for “indegenes,” not “Naturels.” “Les Naturels ou indigenes” was (faultily) rendered “The natives.or natural-born citizens,” not “The natural-born citizens or indigenes” which is what it’d have to be for you to be even remotely correct.

              Now answer the four questions I asked you before, without further attempt to deflect, Answer in Reply to that comment, by typing just the four numbers vertically, 1 through 4, and answering “Yes” or “No” for each, “for more than this cometh of evil.” Why would you be ashamed of answering them? He that is ashamed of Him and His words before men, of him shall He be ashamed before His Father when He comes again with His holy angels.

              • Ike says:

                You probably don’t realize it butttt your political education would be much further along if RC hadn’t manipulated so many of my comments. I would be surprised if RC lets this post from me through his Speech Nazi monitoring. Because of it I haven’t been able to get into any great detail on any issue knowing what he most likely would do. Because of it I will briefly touch on a number of points your trying to pass off as the truth.

                You used the Vietnam Memorial Wall as a tool to lie about & smear Nixon. It’s true that Nixon did pass on through connections to the S.Vietnam President to Hold till he became US president. In the bigger scheme it was a good move.

                Johnson had become a madman in a ‘Non-Declared War’ in Vietnam. He, along with Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided false info for their report to Congress over the August 4th, 1964 Incident in the Bay of Tonkin that led to Johnson being given on August 7th carte blanche militarily by Congress. The next day Johnson goes in front of the American people on TV and claimed the attack on US ships in the Bay of Tonkin (that never happened) forced him to retaliate militarily. The commanders there knew it was a lie, and so did Nixon. Johnson took the US troop total of 16,000 under Kennedy up to 550,000 in Nam after he won the Election in ’64.

                Following his election win in November ’64, Johnson started a bombing campaign in Feb.’65 called Operation Rolling Thunder that lasted till Nov ’68, almost all of Johnson’s 4 year term. The casualties & fatalities due to that are mind-boggling. Secretary McNamara admitted in ’67 it wasn’t working, but Johnson kept it going. What gets lost due to the never-ending propaganda is Nixon from the beginning of his term worked (struggled is a better word for it) to get an honorable out for the United States in Vietnam.

                One other point: I gave you a lenient total on fatalities for Johnson. I made the cut-off when Nixon took office. Johnson’s policies in Nam were in effect for several months after.

                Now for the phoney Ho Che Ming. That wasn’t his real name. He was over 50 years old when he just made it up. He became infatuated with Marxist-Leninism and what Lenin & the Bolsheviks accomplished with their revolution. Shortly after that he was in France and was one of the original founders of the French Communist Party. About 10 years later he founded the Vietnamese Communist Party. He spent a lot of time in Russia & China learning and actively working to spread communism. Eventually he became the head of the North Vietnam Communist Party.

              • As always thank you for your thoughtful comment. I will address a few points:

                I never made any smears about the Vietnam Memorial.

                Yes, Ike made no sense at all with that accusation. I never read anything like that in any of your comments.

                Yes, Johnson was also wrong to get us into the war, but the real blame there is on an earlier Democratic President, Harry S Truman. … I weep to think what might’ve been if only he’d shown support for Ho Chi Minh back before Ho turned to the communists after Truman rejected his plans for an independent Vietnam, free of both the Imperial Japanese [who’d just been defeated in WWII]) and the French colonizers whom the Imperial Japanese had kicked out. But France wanted their “French Indochina” colony back, and Truman, d@mn him, sided with them even though the French Vichy government had knuckled under the Nazis. It was only after that that Ho turned to the communists for support.

                Think about it: we could’ve had a United States of Southeast Asia with a Constitution modeled after our own (Ho Chi Minh was a big fan of our Founding Fathers, our Declaration of Independence [which he quoted extensively from in his own Declaration of Vietnamese Independence], our Constitution, and its Framers — did you know that?).

                I think it is simplistic and a bit of a retrospective rewriting of history to blame Truman so much for what transpired in SE Asia later. Yes, Ho Chi Minh admired the US Founders for breaking the colonial bonds from Great Britain but he had become a communist long before World War II. Our Allies in the war wanted back territories that had been seized by Germany and Japan. They had fought the war based on this. They of course had great economic interest to do so. There was also the feeling by the US that European control of the colonial territories might help keep these areas from falling under Soviet influence as independent nations. I doubt this was a unilateral decision made by Truman but jointly agreed among the Allies. It was not only France who held on to Indochina but Great Britain got back Hong Kong, Burma, Malaya and the rest of their possessions. Should Truman have stepped in against Great Britain too?

                Revolts against colonial rule in some colonies were already underway against the Japanese so guerillas were in place to continue fighting for independence once Japan had been defeated. I believe this was the case in both Indonesia and Vietnam. The period of de-colonization of SE Asia began in 1945 and in some cases was peaceful as with Great Britain and in some cases was violent. It is not surprising at all that the US would support the anti-communist south in Vietnam vs. the communist Ho Chi Minh. To say that if the US would have supported Ho Chi Minh the countries of Indochina would have become a democracies is just speculative.

                I think most of the blame for the Vietnam disaster lies with President Johnson, Robert McNamara and his generals. They ignored intelligence that the war was unwinnable and yet stayed. If Nixon indeed sent signals to North Vietnam to hold on through the 1968 election rather than engage in peace talks that would indeed have been treason. Nixon’s eventual pull out was years too late and the cover story of “Vietnamization” of the war was a complete sham.

                I have read speculation that Kennedy had concluded in 1963 that we needed to withdraw from Vietnam. Unless that is documented in yet unreleased documents we will just never know. I think had Humphrey won in 1968 instead of Nixon history could have changed. Nixon had, we now know, been lying about a “secret plan to end the war”. His plan was an unmitigated disaster. He invaded Cambodia and continued bombing in the north. Eventually Nixon saw his invasion of Cambodia had failed to cause North Vietnam to seriously negotiate so he began a withdrawal under the guise of “Vietnamization” of the war. We all know how things ended.

                I believe Humphrey knew the war was unwinnable by 1968 and would never had escalated the war into Cambodia. Had we begun withdrawing in 1969 the war would have come to an end several years sooner with the loss of thousands fewer Americans. We might have also negotiated better terms than what we eventually got. We will never know though.

                Lastly:

                Like it or not, de Vattel did not say “natural born Citizen” nor French words that would properly translate to that. For that to be the case, “Citoyens” would have to’ve appeared twice in the French of that sentence, and it only appears once, towards the end, regarding “parens.” “Les Naturels” translates to “the natives,” not “natural-born citizens,” and besides, the faulty English translations starting a decade after the Constitution including Article II was written made it clear that “natural born citizens” was its translation for “indegenes,” not “Naturels.” “Les Naturels ou indigenes” was (faultily) rendered “The natives.or natural-born citizens,” not “The natural-born citizens or indigenes” which is what it’d have to be for you to be even remotely correct.

                Ike’s argument on de Vattel is just getting more ridiculous all the time. He now knows that the faulty French – English translation that was published ten years after the Constitution could not have been the basis for anything written into Article II so now he is saying that ALL the Founders not only spoke French BUT would have ALL mistranslated de Vattel the same way AND changed the English common law definition of natural born without mentioning that anywhere. It is really preposterous.

                None of this is new. Mario Apuzzo continued to make silly arguments like this despite being shown otherwise by a number of people and being told by judges he was wrong. I used to listen to an overnight radio program on station KMOX AM in St. Louis. back in the 70s and 80s. The host Jim White had a saying he liked to use often: “You just can’t fix stupid.”

              • Ike says:

                “I never made any smears about the Vietnam Memorial.”

                “Yes, Ike made no sense at all with that accusation. I never read anything like that in any of your comments.”

                OK, I’ll give yas this one. My apology to Comalite for the way I stated it. How I should of framed it was Comalite was using the Wall to take the focus off the disastrous handling of American military involvement in Vietnam by the Johnson-Humphrey administration. The problem with Comalite’s narrative is he puts no blame on the Johnson-Humphrey administration. What if Johnson, McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff hadn’t lied to Congress about the Bay of Tonkin Incident of 8/4/64?

                The following is Comalite peddling a fairy tale: “Johnson was also wrong to get us into the war, but the real blame there is on an earlier Democratic President, Harry S Truman.” Wrong. The former Dem president and one time member of the KKK had nothing to do with Johnson lying America into the Vietnam War. As painfull as it is I must give RC some credit here. He has it right on Ho Che Ming. When he gets to Humphrey I don’t agree with his opinions.

                Lastly: RC is still peddling the Lupin Lunacy on Vattel. Maybe he found something for Vattel in the 20th century. Don’t laugh. Lupin & Dr Con found something for Vattel in the 19th century even though Vattel had been dead for 100 years.

                Here’s the 1759 Boyer Dictionary with the French & English condensed into 1 Volume.

                Is there an Obot here smart enough to find the 6 words listed, define them and then translate them. The page numbers are listed.

                https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102746984

                #Page 365
                Naturel

                #Page 386
                PARENT
                parens

                #Page 957
                Natural

                #Page 984
                PARENT
                Parents

          • I hope you were not expecting an honest answer from that clueless Birther Ike. He has demonstrated he is incapable of that.

            • Ike says:

              COMAlite knows i gave him a factual response. The problem is you don’t understand it. BTW, I’m curious, are you about the same age as addled-brained Creepy Joe Biden. It’s OK if you don’t want to answer it – I’ll understand.

              Would you release the reply I did yesterday (2/6) to your sleazy false claim I’m using ‘your boy’ in a demeaning & pejorative way against blacks. There’s 2 the same – you can toss one. Why you keeping with the moderation – it don’t make sense.

              I had my 2 gumshoes (I call them that) from Commie Tracker check out your claims over the last 2 weeks. They did & told me earlier you were only around 20% correct with what you’re claiming. I had you somewhat higher than that butttt I been loaded down with stuff I had to take care of so I wasn’t able to pay a lot of attention to your blather.

              After 8 years you still have nothing right on the Bibles, Continental & Confederation Congresses. I get to it after I finish up on the 2nd part of your false claim I’m using ‘your boy’ to demean blacks.

              • Where are these two “gumshoes” of yours Ike? No one under 80 really uses that term any longer do they? Can they not come here and defend themselves? You seem to have a lot of imaginary friends. It sounds like you are having doubts about as to whether you are getting your ass handed to you. Believe me. You are.

                I deleted two comments Ike made trying to support his claim that using “boy” to describe Obama is not racist. This is settled and he can waste all the time he wants to trying to defend his racist bullshit. However, I will not tolerate such blatant racism on my blog. That is the end of this discussion. If Ike does not like the rules he can post elsewhere. After years he still has not figured out that calling a black man “your boy” after asking for him to needlessly show his papers is racist. And it is I who decides if it is racist and not Ike.

    • Nice work Kevin. Ike will ignore it because it clearly proves him wrong. He will change the subject to some other piece of irrelevant trivia.

      • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

        Fun fact: in the 1695 (first) edition (which is not formatted at all like a modern dictionary), the plural of “parent” was “parents.” So it actually changed form parents to parens and back to parents over the course of 120 years. But the pronunciation never changed, just the spelling. It’s kind of like how cheap presses dropped the u in honour and colour, The Brits eventually put the u back in, but Americans decided not to.

      • Ike says:

        It’s a false claim to just say the American founders followed & adopted ECL.

        A correct statement would be to say the original immigrants from England to N. America brought with them a limited knowledge of the ECL system and along with other laws such as the 10 Commandments & Mosaic laws developed over time from their own experience their own Colonial Common Law. As the colonies grew the common law among them varied from colony to colony and widely differed from what was termed the Mother country (England) over 3000 miles away.

        So by the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 the statement of George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights, is correct: The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”

        Here again you make a serious mistake. The colonists were translating Vattel’s Law of Nations as early as the early part of 1760’s. We have documented proof the founders new that ‘Les Nateral’ translated to ‘the natural born’. We know Vattel’s Law of Nations started being taught in King’s College (Columbia) around about 1773 and it became a classic in the Universities by 1780. How many were well versed in Vattel’s work by the time of the Constitutional Convention.

        What’s funny is how much Vicklund’s lunacy on the translators looks like a carbon copy of you on the Aitken Bible. I bet you still don’t get it even after you were shown the congressional record & Wikipedia modernized the spelling for you. .

        • Sedition loving Rainbow Ike wrote:

          A correct statement would be to say the original immigrants from England to N. America brought with them a limited knowledge of the ECL system and along with other laws such as the 10 Commandments & Mosaic laws developed over time from their own experience their own Colonial Common Law. As the colonies grew the common law among them varied from colony to colony and widely differed from what was termed the Mother country (England) over 3000 miles away.

          Of course you cannot prove any of that because it is pure speculation. On the contrary I can prove that the former English colonies actually adopted English common law into their constitutions and statutes. They had used English common law their entire lives and were extremely familiar with it. They were so familiar with the definition of natural born that they saw no need to define it in the Constitution or in state laws. They all knew the English common law definition. This reasoning is not something I invented. It is in the majority opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark in the Supreme Court.

          Justice Gray wrote and quoted a previous case from 1866:

          In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

          “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

          https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649

          So much for your baseless speculation about English common law Ike.

          The US proactively adopted English common law in the Reception Statutes and Clauses. The Supreme Court ruled that undefined terms in the Constitution are to be interpreted using English common law. English common law held a special place in American law and still does. de Vattel does not.

          You are spinning a tale that they abandoned the English common law they were familiar with and used. You are speculating about them adopting de Vattel’s view on anything. Unless you can find where they adopted a new meaning of natural born in statute then the meaning they meant was the one with which they were familiar from English common law. We know that as of 1898 the Supreme Court used the English Common law definition to define natural born citizen.

          Oh, and Ike remember your bullshit complaints about me equating “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”? Well Justice Gray and the SCOTUS agreed with me on that one too. ibid.

          The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

          “Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.'”

          Oh golly gee, it must really suck to be Rainbow Ike.

          You lost. We won.

          Any person born a citizen will be eligible to run for president in the future and serve if elected and if they meet the age and residency criteria.

          • I have edited my previous comment to add more detail and Supreme Court references that destroy Ike’s nonsense speculation.

          • Ike says:

            You’re still clinging to what Gray said in US v Wong Kim Ark. That’s sad.

            According to a number of sources I’ve read on the case they claim Gray distorted and manipulated the cases he used to make his claim that being born on the soil was enough for making one a US citizen at birth.

            RC: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.

            Very good! You finally got something right. Senators Howard & Trumbull explained the language of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power.”

            In the North Carolina case Justice Gaston is speaking about state citizenship. I know with your particular problem you wouldn’t remember when I had to straighten you and Hughs out on the federal v state citizenships. i called it the Lupin lunacy on steroids.

            It would have to be painful being you. Wake up everyday knowing you’re going to lose again to the Mighty Ike.

            [RC: More nonsense from a deluded moron. Before the Civil War the matter of citizenship at the state and federal level was a matter of some debate:

            Prior to the Civil War, both state and national citizenship were the subjects of considerable controversy. State citizenship was especially important for practical purposes because it gave access to the jurisdiction of the federal courts that was based on diversity of citizenship, and because Article IV secured certain rights to the citizens of one state who were present in another. Different theories of citizenship were developed. One view was that national citizenship was dependent on state citizenship, so that those who were state citizens under state law, and only those people, were citizens of the United States. This view raised a question concerning those born or resident in the District of Columbia, or in a federal territory. Another view was that federal law implicitly provided a rule that identified citizens of the United States, for example the rule of citizenship by birth.

            A flashpoint of the controversy over citizenship was the Supreme Court’s decision in 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott, who had been held as a slave, sued the executor of his former master’s estate under the state-citizenship diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, seeking a determination that he had become free because his master had voluntarily taken him into free territory. Chief Justice Taney concluded that Scott was not a citizen of any state for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction because the Constitution implicitly limited both state and national citizenship on racial grounds, generally excluding individuals like Scott who were of African descent. This and other aspects of Taney’s analysis were strongly disputed by dissenters on the Court and others, who noted that free blacks had in fact been viewed as citizens by many states at the Founding.

            https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/700

            Before the Civil War most people thought of themselves as citizens of states first and the US second. To claim that English common law only applied to state citizenship is a complete lie on your part and not supported by fact. Why would Gray bother to even quote the North Carolina case if English common law only applied to state citizenship? He quoted it to show how the concept of English common law applied on a national level. Again you fail to read and understand through willful ignorance.

  8. Ike, in your next comment you will answer this question:

    Based on hundreds of court rulings handed down from 2008 to the present is anyone born a citizen on the United States, regardless of parentage, and meeting the age and residency requirements, eligible to serve as president of the United States? It is a simple yes or no question.

    Avoiding a simple yes or no answer on this question is an admission of defeat on your part.

    Maybe that mysterious female following you around can answer that simple question that I doubt you can Ike.

    • Ike says:

      And the answer is a big fat “NO”

      [RC: The answer is Ike is a liar. See my reply.]

      • And the answer is Ike has no clue about reality. My question was based on court rulings, not opinion. You cannot cite even a single recent court ruling to support your ridiculous answer while I can cite dozens including Berg v Obama, Kerchner v Obama, Barnett v Obama, Tisdale v Obama, Ankeny v Sate of Indiana. You have zero, nada, zilch, not a single case you can cite.

        Birther Scorecard

        The up to date count is The Constitution 227 Birthers 0
        In 1916 Georgia Tech beat Cumberland College 222-0 in the worst blowout ever in college football. Cumberland came in better than the Birther team!

        Of course the Birthers claim biased judges made all these decisions when they cannot actually argue against the legal issues involved and ignore the fact that judges nominated by the last four Republican presidents have ruled against Birthers consistently.

      • Again I ask.

        Based on hundreds of court rulings handed down from 2008 to the present is anyone born a citizen on the United States, regardless of parentage, and meeting the age and residency requirements, eligible to serve as president of the United States?

        It is a simple question. You cannot say no without providing court citations or evidence that the laws changed that negate the dozens of cases where the courts and arbiters ruled that anyone born a citizen is eligible to be president.

        Ike has yet to honestly answer this simple question. He is instead flailing around arguing that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. What a pathetic cretin he is.

        • Ike says:

          Anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence, which of course leaves you out, would, after reading the WKA case and the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment, realize the dicision was wrong.

          Actually you even said so yourself without realizing it. You claimed: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.”

          I agreed with you. Birth and allegiance go together. New borns inherits the allegiance of their parents. Kim Ark’s parents had allegiance to the Emperor of China never to the United States. Which means Kim Ark was not born a US citizen. Now if you claim they weren’t allowed to that doesn’t changed the fact they never had allegiance. All the Wongs were subject to a foreign power, the Emperor of China.

          [RC: So where did you come up with that? “New borns inherits the allegiance of their parents.” Oh wait, you pulled it right out of your ass! The ruling in WKA was that we inherited jus soli from England so allegiance is to the country of your birth is referring to birth in the realm. There is no other way to interpret the decision. Wong Kim Ark never accepts allegiance to the country of the parents birth as important. You cannot arbitrarily add concepts to a Supreme Court decision that are not there, unless you are a lying Birther like you, Mario Apuzzo, Robert Laity and others I could name. If the US operated on jus sanguinis then the 14th Amendment would have never been worded the way it was. Wong Kim Ark and his parents were subject to American laws since they were living in Ameeriaca at the time of his birth. ]

          Children born to Americans in foreign countries inherit the allegiance of their parents.

          [RC: But their citizenship is determined by US statute. They may also become citizens of the country of their birth depending upon the laws of that country. That does not matter as to US citizenship. Many of us believe they are also natural born citizens and the courts seem to agree. Great Britain extended by statute that natural born subjects included children born to British subjects (specifically fathers) on foreign soil. We can have an honest discussion about the eligibility of those citizens to be president. However, as to citizens born on US soil that was long ago settled law.]

          • So we are really down to the crux of the Birther argument are we not? You and the other Birthers know Wong Kim Ark kills your argument that a natural born citizen has to have citizen parents. Therefore, you have to reject Wong Kim Ark (and hundreds of other decisions following it). We operate under jus soli as a primary path to natural born citizenship and always have. Birthers believe you are what your parents are and no more. That is really a concept against what America is all about and rooted in Jingoism and racism. You want to believe that hyphenated Americans are somehow less American than “true full blooded Americans”. I on the other hand judge my fellow Americans for who they are, what they believe, what they say, and what they do. I could care less who their parents are. We all have heritage that we can either embrace or reject. However, it should not be used against us.

            That is why some conservative invented this concept of a third class of “14th Amendment citizen” in additional to natural born and naturalized. Apuzzo and other Birthers adopted this. The Supreme Court has rejected this notion in multiple decisions.

          • Ike says:

            Did Gray muff another one?

            [RC: The ruling in WKA was that we inherited jus soli from England so allegiance is to the country of your birth. Gray (WKA) never accepts allegiance to the country of the parents as important.]

            From an article I’m reading: Natural allegiance via Jus Soli was a uniquely Christian point of law repulsive to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

            In other words, it would be in conflict with our Constitution.

            Additionally, the English common law term, “natural-born subject”, being a uniquely spiritual designation, was only granted to members of the Christian faith, and cannot govern the definition of “natural born Citizen”, because such a construction would be repugnant to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

  9. Ike says:

    It’s something I’ve scrolled through and when I find time I’ll read it. What I posted on it was what my gumshoes sent me. It’s the Amicus Brief by Leo Donofrio he sent to the Georgia court in 2012. It sounds interesting.

  10. It’s nice to be remembered. I guess.

    It would be nicer if folks like Rambo Ike and the other birthers just publicly acknowledged they were wrong about the whole thing.

    Obviously, that’s too much to ask.

    I think it’s very unfortunate that Mr. Apuzzo died from COVID. I don’t wish that on anyone. It’s been an ongoing source of frustration to see people suffering and dying needlessly from this disease. Mr. Apuzzo’s family has my sympathy, none of which will bring back to them any of what they’ve lost.

    Obama’s birth certificate was mentioned. A number of people have expressed the opinion through the years that it is not possible to declare a document genuine or not without seeing the actual document. In this case, at least, I disagree.

    It is possible that the image of a document, together with its provenance, will contain enough information that you can confidently declare it either a forgery, or genuine.

    In the case of a number of faked documents claiming to be “genuine Obama birth certificates” (every one of them except the official White House image, as far as I can recall)this was the case.

    One was shown to have been created from the image of an Australian birth certificate. Another, or probably others, was shown to have errors on them that would never have occurred on an official document. And so forth.

    It is also possible that an image could pass every test put to it, and contain information that is a mark of authenticity, and is so unlikely to be present in a forgery that it can confidently be declared to be genuine.

    This is the situation with Obama’s birth certificate image. It was undoubtedly scrutinized far more closely than any other one-page document in human history — and it passed every single one of these tests.

    It also contained information that speaks of authenticity, which is wildly unlikely to be present in any non-authentic birth certificate.

    For more information on that, see my two-part article from last year at obamabirthbook.com.

    Because of the above, I have no hesitancy in declaring that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and was and is a natural born US citizen.

    There is similarly no doubt as to his eligibility under the Constitution. Mario Apuzzo’s claims in this regard were and are absolute rubbish.

    Back when these topics were current, some folks maintained that a lot of birtherism was due to racism. I didn’t want to believe it at first. In the end, however, I came to believe it.

    The utter hypocrisy of the birther movement was that it was supposed to be about defending America from foreign influence. There were all KINDS of extremely alarming signs of compromise to foreign powers (including Russia) during the Former Guy’s administration. I didn’t follow particularly closely, but I don’t know of a single birther who ever expressed concern.

    I honestly don’t know why people continue to talk about any of these subjects, except that they become minimally relevant from time to time in the case of a Ted Cruz (a genuine slime weasel, but absolutely eligible Constitutionally) or a Kamala Harris (also absolutely Constitutionally eligible).

    I don’t know why Reality Check continues to put up with Rambo Ike all these years later, except that I guess there’s still some entertainment value?

    Anyway, it’s all sort of a mystery to me.

    I actually wrote a blog post once about how utterly, idiotically moronic it was to think Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya and gave birth to him there. Look it up at obamabirthbook.com.

    William Henry Harrison’s cause of death is disputed. It appears likely that he died not of pneumonia caught from speaking at length in the bitter cold, but from thyphoid fever, caught from the White House’s contaminated water supply, which killed a few others as well.

    Clarification regarding my own politics. I most certainly WAS a conservative, and very clearly so, during the writing of my first book. I started out HOPING that I could find some genuine and hard evidence to show that Obama’s birth certificate was forged.

    Over the more than 10 years since that book was published, I have done a thorough assessment of our politics and our policies. The result is the most important written work I’ve done, a course entitled, “How We Fix America.” I refer you to howwefixamerica.com for more details.

    This is in “beta” edition, but I intend to make it officially published soon.

    Anyway, along the way, I stopped making decisions based on ideology (“I am a conservative” / “I am a liberal”) and chose a different standard.

    That standard is a simple question: “What’s in the best interest of the American People and the future of our nation?”

    And I don’t think I exaggerate when I say that I gave the whole question a very impartial and non-partisan treatment in the course.

    As for me personally, though, I can no longer see a future in the Republican Party. I can and do see a future in the Democratic one.

    It continues to amaze me how people can continue to deceive themselves and pretend that they have “won” arguments that they have clearly and decisively lost, long, long ago.

    Ike’s defense of Trump’s attempted coup is morally, patriotically, rationally, and in every other way reprehensible.

    On my previous opinion of former President Obama. What I wrote regarding my opinion was true when I wrote it, which was apparently in 2011.

    My opinions shifted only slowly and reluctantly, but over time they certainly did shift.

    We have had 12 Presidents in my lifetime. Today I would rank Mr. Obama near the top of that list. I think he tried his best to do what was right for the country and for the American People.

    As for which party cares most about human life, it certainly seems that as soon as someone is actually born, Republicans in general forget about that person entirely.

    Ike is a troll. I really don’t know why Reality Check continues to put up with Rambo Ike all these years later, except that I guess there’s still some entertainment value?

    Anyway, it’s all sort of a mystery to me.

    Also anyway, I hope that RC and others let birtherism sink into the abyss of misbegotten history, get your boots on, and join me in attempting to fix America’s future.

    My comments may generate some replies. I’m going to try and avoid getting sucked in. I honestly have far more important things I need to do.

    • I numbered those comments. It looks like the system stripped out my numbers, and some of my clean paragraphs along with them.

    • John

      Thank you for dropping by and leaving the comments. I wish you the best of luck in your latest endeavors. I think the book is very important and worth a read. It opened my eyes even wider about some things going on in our country.

      As to Ike…

      I do not like to ban or censor people. I let Hermitian ramble on and on with his really bad arguments against the Xerox explanation for the Obama LFBC PDF file structure. He was another example of someone who was pretty smart (he was a retired PhD in engineering mechanics who had worked at Oak Ridge laboratory in Tennessee) but he was just out of his league not only here but especially at NBC’s blog.

      Ike thinks he is schooling us but is actually making a complete fool of himself. Just in the last few days he has passed on lies about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Fact check, and other commenters on my blog. By all rights he should be banned as a troll. Since some commenters like COMALiteJ have asked me not to do that I will not right now. But my patience is not endless.

      • Thanks, RC.

        I’m glad you’ve been finding the course enlightening!

        • Congratulations. I see the book was officially launched.

          • Thanks! Yes, the course is officially published. Our challenge now is to find ways to educate and inspire millions of Americans with the truth.

            This will include finding faster and more user-friendly ways to get people in touch with the core truths contained in the course.

            Your most recent article showing the curve of confidence and knowledge is something I’d love to include in educating people. We have a wealth of material, but people have limited time and attention.

        • COMALite J says:

          Just so you know, thanks to you I had to walk back something, and to the best of my knowledge it’s the only time I know of that any “Obot” has ever had to walk back something, as compared to all the times Birthers have had to do so.

          You see, I, too, realized that the “layers” and such in the Obama long-form .pdf at the White House website was from Mixed Raster Content compression, but I didn’t make the connection with the Xerox WorkCentre. Instead, the scenario I thought most likely was that the staffer who scanned it did so using Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro v6 or later, doing a “File” ⇒ “Create .PDF” ⇒ “From Scanner …”, unchecking the “Recognize Text (OCR)?” checkbox (since the White House .PDF had no OCR), then accepting all other defaults and scanning it that way directly into Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro v6 or later (not Reader, nor scanning with a scanner utility such as Epson Scan or CanoScan or VueScan or whatever, nor scanning into Photoshop or whatever, saving as a bitmap, then opening that into Acrobat).

          Early on in the long-form Birtherism, I’d tell Birthers to try it themselves with any known genuine physical paper document they have access to (heck, a canceled check will do), with steps to follow. One Birther on YouTube, “trident3b,” did it, and even named me in his followup video. He used a DHL package delivery label, and sure enough, layers and such, which he was able to move around when opening the resulting .PDF in Illustrator. Unfortunately, he’d since deleted that video.

          But your scenario of the Xerox WorkCentre is much more likely, requiring fewer steps on the part of the staffer (no need to deactivate OCR since the WorkCentre lacks that feature in the first place — the standard default settings suffice).

          As I type this, World War III looks to be on the immediate horizon as Putin has invaded eastern Ukraine, which he feels empowered to do partly because our nation has been so weakened by TFG and, among other things, his setting Biden up with a Kobyashi Maru of an Afghanistan situation (which he openly bragged about at his first post-Presidency rally in, IIRC, Iowa — video of him doing it is on YouTube and news sites). Of course, the pandemic was much worse than it could’ve been because TFG tore down Obama’s global pandemic response team put in place after H1N1, in spite over being justifiably (and classily and hilariously) mocked by Obama about his birth certificate at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2011. Also the economic turmoil, the rise in domestic right-wing terrorism which TFG’s presidency fanned the flames of since they felt (rightly or wrongly) that he was on their side, and so much more.

          To think that all of this and more could’ve been avoided if any one of the following had happened differently:

          • №1: The staffer who, on the morning of April 27, 2011, inserted the long-form Certificate of Live Birth into the sheet feeder of the Xerox WorkCentre Model 7655, wrong-end first. When copying documents instead of scanning them, you’d probably not even notice that that’d happen. The copies would be upside-down, but just turn the resulting stack of paper around, which would probably be done subconsciously. Only if copied onto pre-printed forms or some such would it be noticed. But when scanning? Yes, that’s a problem.

          But, Birtherism would still have been utterly humiliated on April 27 even so, if:

          • №2: The White House website staffer who got the Email from the WorkCentre’s Scan-to-Email function, upon opening the .PDF and realizing it was upside-down, had done the rotation in Adobe Acrobat instead of the Preview application that comes with Mac OS X (in this case, v. 10.6.8 “Snow Leopard”). Mac OS X’s display subsystem is built on Quartz, which is an optimized version of Display PostScript which Steve Jobs had previously used on his NeXTstep OS of the NeXTcube and NeXT “pizza box” computers his NeXTstep company had developed during his short-lived exile from Apple, but this means that since .PDF is largely based on PostScript, that NeXTstep and the Apple Mac OS X that was based on it, with its Quartz, could handle .PDF files natively without needing Adobe Acrobat or even Reader. Anyway, doing the rotation in Acrobat would’ve kept the original “Xerox WorkCentre Model 7655” entries in the “PDF Creator” and “Application” parts of the .PDF metadata, easily viewable even in Acrobat Reader by doing “File“ ⇒ “Document Info.”

          Even that wouldn’t’ve been a problem if:

          • №3: The developers at Apple who’d developed the Preview application as of 10.6.8 “Snow Leopard” had, upon giving it the ability to do very limited modifications (such as 90°-increment rotations) to files instead of just viewing them as was its original purpose, had not been so lazy or incompetent or both as to have programmed its “Save” function to not overwrite the “PDF Creator” and “Application” metadata entries with its own “Quartz PDFcontext 10.6.8” and “Preview” strings, respectively, instead of properly retaining the original values of those from the original unmodified file, as it really should’ve done.

          Any one of those happening differently would’ve left the metadata intact, and it would’ve been very obvious on April 27, just as the first few Birther videos going after it for “layers” and such, was indeed scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre Model 7655, and what that meant given that Xerox had patented Mixed Raster Content for their own use (Adobe licensed it from them). And that would’ve meant that, for example, YouTuber “orangegold1” (then-teenager Albert Renshaw) would’ve been schooled right away on his first video about the layers, and Carl Denninger too. Renshaw, at least once he matured, turned out to be honest enough to admit that he was wrong, and to’ve put a disclaimer on his videos retracting their assertions.

          And that would’ve meant that Trump’s ride on the Birther bandwagon would’ve been a shorter one. Likely, Obama wouldn’t’ve felt the need to justifiably humiliate him at the WHCD, and people who know Trump well (including Omarosa, back when she was on his good side) have said that that was the primary reason he ran for President in the first place: to tear down Obama’s legacy for making fun of his Birther bullying.

          Of course, if “Dave N” hadn’t clicked “Submit” on that short and intended-to-be-helpful comment on the The Volokh Conspiracy blog article about McCain’s status at 2:02 ㏂ on Leap Year Day, 2008, the whole Birther bandwagon would never have happened.

          Now? We had a pandemic be much worse than it needed to be, causing economic turmoil, and we have a party that is actively blocking any progress on climate change in our very last chance to even mitigate it (stopping it is no longer on the table) which is an actual existential threat to our whole civilization meaning that every child alive today is going to have a horrible future unless they blessedly die young before that can happen (the single worst act of mass child abuse in all of human history, worse than all others combined), rising racism and right-wing terrorism including an insurrection on the Capitol (and let’s not forget the earlier nearly successful attempted kidnapping of a Governor), near victory in the decades-long war on the co0ncept of public education, and impending WWIII, and more, all fueled by Trump’s four years in office, which only happened because of Birtherism.

          All would’ve been averted if “Dave N” hadn’t posted that comment. I hope he’s never read Loren Collin’s “Bullspotting” research and realized the implications. If it were me, I’d have to be on suicide watch. If I could take a time machine back to any one moment this century with the ability to intervene (sidestepping paradox somehow), it’d be a toss-up between that and stopping 9/11. I’d pop into his room or wherever at 2:01 and tell him not to click that “Submit” button.

          • Ike says:

            COMALite: “Just so you know, thanks to you I had to walk back something, and to the best of my knowledge it’s the only time I know of that any “Obot” has ever had to walk back something, as compared to all the times Birthers have had to do so.”

            You need to do some walkbacks on some of your earlier posts in this thread. You gave it away. It’s apparent from your statement you haven’t been around very long. I have walkbacks from Obots but it would also be true say that it’s rare. They prefer to cut & run.

            One of my favorite walkbacks was from RC. I claimed whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.” RC responded saying that wasn’t true, that the court ruled in the case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White that the son of two Chinese immigrants was a natural born citizen. Jan Fat had citizen parents unlike Kim Ark.

            This was his halfhearted apology where he makes it look like I said women were nonpersons but he actually typed that. He should of left out the word ‘and’: Rambo (who is still banned) points out that Kwock’s father was a native born born citizen (and women were nonpersons in 1915 who carried the citizenship of the husband as long as they remained married). Tesibra doesn’t mention that in her writeup and I didn’t read the entire case. It is my fault and I admit my honest mistakes…

            What was ironic on that thread was I could of proven Obama’s Marxist history and instead let it go. I also had something, and still do, on the WKA case and never used it.

            Your last 4 paragraphs regarding Trump, Dave N, and Loren Collins is pure nonsense.

            • I corrected my misunderstanding of Kwock Jan Fat v White right away unlike you who continue to lie that President Obama was ineligible and that I am a communist. I stand by everything I called you including a liar, a troll, and a racist.

              What do you have to say about Trump’s statement on Putin and the Ukraine? Is Putin a “peacemaker”? If you cannot bring yourself to clearly condemn Trump’s words it will demonstrate once again that you are the one who loves Russia and Communism like the traitor and criminal you worship. I will have to consider whether I will continue to let a traitor lover like you to infect my blog.

              • Russia is very happy with their paid little puppet Donald Trump.

              • Ike says:

                As can be expected with you you don’t get it. Trump was throwing out some sarcastic quips to Biden’s administration & party for their policies that has helped Putin.

                The policies have made a laughing stock of America. Shutting down the Keystone Pipeline to help Putin took away $million$ in wages from workers on both sides of the US-Canadian border. Currently the U.S. imports about 150,000 to 200,000 barrels of Russian oil and about 500,000 barrels of refined products a day. That means that U.S. consumers are effectively sending tens of millions of dollars every day to Russian companies with close ties to the Russian government. Under Trump the policy was to become independent of foreign oil.

                How can America help Ukraine defend it’s borders from Russia without looking like a colossal hypocrite due to the Biden Administration policy of US Open Southern Borders for America & allowing an invasion to occur. Like other radicals of the Left/farLeft you Obots have shown you don’t support the Constitution’s Art. IV, Sec. 4.

                A new Harvard Harris poll has found that a solid majority of American voters believe Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Donald Trump was still president. I agree.

                https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/poll-62-percent-voters-say-putin-wouldnt-invaded-ukraine-trump-still-president/

              • Such lies and half truths you just defecated Ike:

                Trump was not being sarcastic about Putin. Other Republicans like Mike Pompeo have joined in praising Putin. So has Tucker Carlson. If Trump was being sarcastic why are even many Republicans disgusted by his statements? Even if it were sarcasm over the invasion it would be inappropriate and just plain stupid. And the statement is already fodder for Russian propaganda. You must be so proud of the one you worship.

                But he was not being sarcastic. He admires Putin and is envious of his power. Ike, you are in denial and lying to try to find a way forgive a traitor. I am not sure why I should continue give a place for someone who supports a traitor to comment.

                The Keystone Pipeline is irrelevant to the current situation since it would have not been done for years. It would not create oil. The importation of oil is largely controlled by supply and demand and the state of the US economy, which has been booming under Biden. Politifact debunks your nonsense gleaned from right wing sites like Forbes and worse.
                https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/23/facebook-posts/us-importing-large-amount-russian-oil-facebook-pos/

                Biden has repaired our relationships with NATO and Europe that Trump left in shambles. That is why we are able to present a unified front against Russia and impose sanctions that will have an effect (see how I properly used the word there Ike?) over time. Russia is not having a cakewalk so far. We should thank out lucky stars we have a steady leader like Joe Biden in charge instead of an impulsive, uninformed, moron that Trump was and continues to be.

                Time will tell if sanctions work. Trump would not have any better options unless you think the idiot would have been prepared to start World War III over Ukraine.

                Your statement about the southern US border is a flat out lie and has nothing to do with Ukraine.

                https://scontent-mia3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/274751820_372254398279899_6325276595499811906_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=HUcoz4seoPUAX_x2wZK&tn=-gJlZ7i8V3nhRuQM&_nc_ht=scontent-mia3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8LrV39AQGGKBwSbgUQbqwaYH6RUdaj_KEfX18R4qrP6Q&oe=62206659

              • Trump and the Republicans want us to forget what he did to the Ukraine and Zelensky starting in 2016.

                Five vile things Trump did to Zelensky and Ukraine that you forgot about

    • More on the so called “spying” by Obama and Clinton. This article from Law and Crime explains this in detail:

      The Words ‘Infiltrate’ and ‘Spy’ Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham’s Recent Court Filing. Here’s What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn’t.

      It is important to note that Durham in his ill advised filing is not charging anyone with any crime. As a matter of fact the statute of limitations has run out even if anything illegal had been done. The only crime Sussman is charged with is lying to the general counsel of the FBI about who he had been working for. Sussman’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges yesterday that many think will be successful.

      • I sorta skimmed the article.

        The thing that I find personally irritating is that I have at least one relative who will now consider themselves absolutely justified in believing the most extreme interpretation of this that anyone can produce.

        • Your relative probably consumes Fox News and/or right wing talk. I read today that since Hillary Clinton fired a shot over Fox News bow yesterday with her comment about them getting close to “actual malice” in their lies Fox has pretty much quit talking about it. I wish we could transform conversations on subjects like this from “us vs. them” into “fact vs. fiction”. I know you wrote about that in the course.

  11. Ike says:

    “Fact vs Fiction”?

    That’s nothing new. We been doing that for years on this God-forsaken blog.

    Ike’s conservative curriculum brings the facts & you Obots roll out the fiction. And that’s a Fact.

    I find it hilarious that Johnny Thin-Skin was so upset over me providing some past statements he made regarding Obama that he wants me banned. I told him here a couple years ago when he wanted to debate politics with me he was too emotionally unstable and that within a short time of me bringing the facts he’d lose control & go ballistic.

    That why it’s necessary for people like Woodman & RC to have their own blogs. They can go Speech Nazi and control the comments, like RC has been doing to me for years.

    Woodman shouldn’t be writing books on how to fix anything, especially when it comes to America. Heck, he doesn’t even support the Constitution, like most of the Obots I’ve dealt with.

    Woodman: “It would be nicer if folks like Rambo Ike and the other birthers just publicly acknowledged they were wrong about the whole thing.”

    If I thought I was wrong I definitely would admit to it. The problem is with the Track Record of Ike vs the Obots on a number of sites that starts back in 2011. Obots have been wrong a vast majority of the time with their claims/facts, and their follow up false spins have become what legends are made of. At times its been mindless entertainment. Here on RC’s blog my gumshoes claim there are over a 100 false claims by you Obots on just the last 4 articles where I commented.

    I find you Obots wrong on almost everything. That includes the WKA case, ECL, de Vattel, the Collins article and many others on & off the Obama Birther Issues.

    The media took advantage of you Obots from the beginning. Here’s just a couple examples from dozens:

    Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, June 2009: I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above above the world, he’s sort of God.

    Barbara Walters speaking about the media: Well, you’ve touched on it to a degree. He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be — I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime — but the next messiah.

    It was stuff like that coming from the media that poisoned your minds into believing there was truth to what they were saying. The truth is Obama was just as fallible & flawed as Clinton, Bush, Trump & Biden. Obots couldn’t see that. To them Obama their messiah-like Dear Leader was above America, and not answerable to the American people. And anyone that didn’t go along with that was labeled a racist, and after 12 years Obots are still trying to stigmatize people with their racist claims. Sheesh.

    • I find it hilarious that Johnny Thin-Skin was so
      upset over me providing some past statements he
      made regarding Obama that he wants me banned.

      It’s simply that you’re a waste of everyone’s time, including your own.

      If I thought I was wrong I definitely would
      admit to it.

      Assuming that you’re sincere, then you’re an interesting case study in ossified Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is actually a current interest of mine.

      RC’s latest post has a video that goes into the basics:

      But it doesn’t quite go far enough. It stops short of noting that there are people whose confidence in their own rightness — or at least whose commitment to believing in their own rightness — is so strong that every attempt to serve them reality and truth fails.

      Instead, they develop a persistent habit pattern of simply brushing off all facts and evidence that contradict their chosen belief.

      If someone is committed to continuing in a particular belief in spite of any and all evidence that that belief is wrong, there’s just not much you can do with that.

      • My 2-1/2 year old granddaughter has imaginary friends. That is cute and normal. I am assuming Ikey is over the age where having imaginary friends could be considered normal.

        • Ike says:

          I suppose I should clear the air on this before RC goes into the gutter over it. He already has made some crude, filth type replies to me that I didn’t bother to respond to. For the record they too were foolish false claims.

          RC’s imaginary friends claim are actually my 2 granddaughters. Over the years I’ve had many different family members spend some time involved with my politics online and they also use my IDs for online gaming. For laughs I’ve always referred to them as my gumshoes – they like it. These 2 are in their 20s, married, college graduates, and historically speaking, politically green but pretty much up on current politics.

          Having them reply is out of the question. Keeping their emails private eliminates any possibilities of something uncalled for. They are aware of the possibilities and agree with me. As far as the filth goes they’re adults and know the score – they just won’t read it.

          • I wish your granddaughters well and would never do anything to expose them if they chose to comment here. My advice would be to spend time with them instead of making more pointless comments here. It would certainly be a more productive use of your and everyone else’s time. I have to ask for a list of those over 100 lies I made in the last four posts. If you are going to quote them they should be able to try to defend such a claim, which I know they could not do.

            • Ike says:

              Obviously you’re still wet behind the ears. As your granddaughter grows older she’ll reach an age where her priorities are to other things and won’t have that much time for grandparents.

              I don’t know about you butttt someone of average intelligence with some common sense and has a fairly good knowledge of the subjects & issues that were argued wouldn’t have any problems seeing the false claims you Obots made. My guess is that some of your fellow traveling Obot buddies already know butttt don’t want to embarrass you with the facts.

              I’ll repeat what my gumshoes told me: On the last 4 of your articles where I commented, starting with your article on September 17, 2019, ‘For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period., then there are 3 more since then where I commented. If you read the 4 articles and all the Obot comments only, it will exceed 100 times you Obots made false claims. Some of those claims are multiple times.

              • So now that I called you on it you are changing your claim? Now it’s falsehoods that others told and have been repeated that make up the “100 lies”? I can see why your grandchildren don’t have much time for their clearly demented old coot of a grandfather. 😆

                Anyway, bringing in your anonymous “gumshoes” to support you is about the most pathetic thing I have seen a cowardly Birther do.

              • Ike says:

                This is unreal. Not only, RC, do you have cognitive impairment, but you’re showing a reading comprehension disability to go along with it.

                I couldn’t understand why so many of your replies to me weren’t making sense. Now I get it.

      • Hermitian, (real name Henry Blake but not the Henry Blake) went to his grave believing all sorts of lies and that he had schooled the “Three Amigos” as he called NBC, Kevin W. Vicklund and me. I suspect the same fate awaits Ike some day.

      • Ike says:

        It’s a maxim (general truth) that one out of every three Obots is just as stupid as the other two. RC: Strike one Ike.

    • The media took advantage of you Obots from the beginning. Here’s just a couple examples from dozens:

      Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, June 2009: I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above above the world, he’s sort of God.

      Barbara Walters speaking about the media: Well, you’ve touched on it to a degree. He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be — I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime — but the next messiah.

      Since I saw neither one of those quotes they had no effect on me. I formed my opinion of Barack Obama by watching him speak, reading his writings, and watching his actions as president. It was easy to look like a “god” following G. W. Bush, a dull, mediocre man who got us into all sorts of trouble including 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Great Recession. After all, he failed in the oil business after being set up by wealthy friends of his father. How stupid can you be?

      • Ike says:

        There were at least 2 dozen more and I’m sure some had an affect on you based on your drooling when you speak about your Dear Leader. If you’re interested I’ll post some more. He really was pompous and believed what his followers & the media were saying about him.

        RC: Ike is not very bright or lacks education. Look up “affect” vs. “effect”. Dunning-Kruger at work again here.

        Here’s why I call you Obots history lite, at least most of yas seem to be and that includes you. You are mostly wrong on Bush43. I don’t have time to look it up so I’m generalizing & from memory: Bush had mixed success in the oil business. He emerged with another company, had some losses, sold his shares in the company and with the money bought the Texas Rangers baseball club.

        Bush is responsible for Afghanistan and that’s it. The rest/others belong to the Democrats.

        RC: Cheney and Bush 43 lied about Iraq’s WND program to sell the invasion. To deny that is complete ignorance of history.

        Check out the Wikipedia article on Bush’s business dealings when he bought into the Rangers. He invested $600,000 into the deal and borrowed most of that. The deal to buy the Rangers was arrange by Daddy’s friends. Bush held only a 2% ownership. Against the advice of his accountants Bush sold $800,000 of his stock in Harken Energy to pay off the loan. Harken Energy reported heavy losses within a year of the sale and many thought Bush was guilty of insider trading. Bush received $14 million for his $600,000 stake when the Rangers were sold in 1998. The SEC investigated Bush but never did anything because it was still filled with members appointed by his father.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush

        John Kerry who I think was a Massachuttes Senator pre-9/11 was informed 4 months before the attack of security breaches at Logan airport and of possibly being open to terrorists, didn’t pass the document information on to the proper channels. He let it sit on his desk.

        Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, was caught stealing classified documents from the National Archives. Some he was able to destroy before he got caught. He was Clinton’s representative on the 9/11 Commission at the time he stole the documents. It’s believed, based on what documents were recovered and the notes on them, that the ones he destroyed had notes warning the Clinton Admin. about a possible terrorist attact looming.

        RC: Again you provided no links for any of your shit but I vaguely remembered Sandy Berger. Berger paid for his crime with a $50,000 fine, a 2 year probation and loss of his security clearance. Are you actually equating this to a sitting President doing the same or worse? Also we know Bush received plain language security briefings months before 9/11 that he plainly ignored.

        Iraq was Democrat deceit. While Bush was still governor of Texas, Democrats were telling the American people of the tthreat to the U.S. from Saddams WMD. They were having townhall type meetings explaining why Clinton should attack Iraq. And Clinton did bomb Iraq while Bush was still governor, lmao. George Tenet, Clinton’s head of the CIA, told Bush when he became president that finding WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. When congressional approval was needed for Bush to go into Iraq, the Democrat controlled Senate voted for it.

        https://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

        RC: This site is biased and contains only Democratic quotes. Most of the quotes concern chemical weapons that everyone knew Hussein had. Why? Because he had used them against the Kurds. Congress only voted for the war in Iraq because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condie Rice lied incessantly about the WMD’s after 911.

        Great Recession? Again, this was a result of Dems and their operatives using strong arm tactics (shake downs) on banks and lenders to make mortgage loans that were considered high risk. I think some were balloon mortgages. Eventually it imploded on them. I think Barney Franks finally admitted to O’Reilly on FOX News the Dems were wrong.

        RC: Yeah we get it; republicans are never responsible for anything even when they are in control. Lack of regulation of the derivatives markets were the real cause of the collapse. You are a liar Ike.

        • Since it is indisputable that President Obama is a natural born citizen, was duly was elected twice and served two terms any comment claiming otherwise without a citing a specific court case where either candidate Obama or President Obama was ruled ineligible by name will be deleted in it’s entirety. This applies equally to anyone commenting. This question was settled over a decade ago in 1898 and any further expression of ignorance about it is a waste of my readers’ time.

          Any argument against this rule will likewise be deleted.

          Edit: This rule also includes dishonest questions about President Obama’s place of birth and birth documentation. Those questions were also settled long ago.

        • Any further misspellings of the name of the Democratic party will result in an entire comment being deleted. It is childish and intentionally done by conservatives to demean the party that does not support our enemy.

        • Ike says:

          This is sad butttt typical with you. Less than 1/2 of what you claimed is correct. When I get time I’ll lay it out for ya. I’m going to do a couple more quickies here then off to another site where someone needs a history lesson on Obama.

          There is a lot involved here. I’m starting to remember more & I’ll research some of it. If you used logic you’d see you’re wrong on the quotes. On your last claim I remember Bush trying to get regulations early on and the Democrats blocking him in Congress. You probably don’t know who this is but check out Jamie Gorelick. Back when this was a hot button issue I seen her as who I thought was more responsible for 9/11 happening than anyone else (that’s an opinion). You don’t see how you twisted it/spun it up on Berger? That’s laughable. If the Republicans lied after 9/11, then what were the Democrats doing before 9/11 & after? Also check out the polling done after 9/11.

  12. Biden Answered the 3 a.m. Call while the former guy and still an idiot in Florida wants us to paint our planes in Chinese colors and bomb the sh%t out of Russia. Thank dog we retired that dangerous MoFo.

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 )

Connecting to %s