An article at Phoeniz, Arizona, TV station KPHO titled: Birther Bill In Limbo, Voting Postponed caught my eye for obvious reasons. I jumped to the conclusion that the article was about House Bill 2544, an act relating to the conduct of elections, and in particular requiring certain documentation and certifications of presidential candidates designed to exclude Barack Obama. However, it was about a bill that would exclude the children of illegal immigrants from US citizenship.
At least at this news outlet immigration activists are being lumped in with the conspiracy theorists who believe Barack Obama himself was a immigrant. While I see some reason to make the connection, I think this usage will create confusion.
Since one of the birther’s favorite memes is that they are the only ones that understand the Constitution and everyone else is just ignorant of the true meaning, I would expect them to latch onto this for a new birther talking point very quickly…
off topic alert:
Steven Lee Craig has posted some new court filings
http://www.scribd.com/collections/2850258/USCA-10th-Circuit-11-9501
I think the overall issue leading to association of “birther” bills with “immigration bills” is that in both cases, the proponents behind them are often trying to make up new, restrictive definitions for citizenship of all forms, which are not supported in our Constitution nor within the body of law.
OFGS had a really good article out today on some of these state bills with some interesting updates on them:
1. Update on AZ & SD bills – both unlikely to move foward in their state legislatures:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16220
ALSO – while mentioning OFGS, there are two real interesting articles that might indicate some “sanity” pushback by the GOP against the “insanity” of the TeaParty / RWNJ infestation that seems to have taken over:
2. Sen. Luger To Tea Party: “Get Real”
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16254
3. GOP Chairman, Tired Of The Nuts In Colorado, Quits
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=16265
I read KPHO’s article and it appears a bit disingenuous.
But with seeing how people highly rated themselves as “Outraged”, I could see what viewer base KPHO might have.
Of course, those “outraged” votes could be the product of a few online sites, especially ones by and for birthers.
What’s your take, Doc?
Sloppy journalism or intentional bias?
And yes, OFGS looks like a window into a Planters peanuts convention today.
High nut concentration for sure.
The KPHO story seems pretty straight up to me.
I took outraged to mean outraged at this proposed legislation’s waste of time and resources.
There is a post on Free Republic stating one of the principal Founders, James Wilson said the following…
The Law of Nations is divine.
Did a quick research of Mr. Wilson..he was one of the original Supreme Court Justices appointed by Washington, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, one of the main players drafting the Constitution.
This forum advocates the law of nations was of no importance to the Framers of the
Constitution.
One has to wonder..was it the Law of Nations and not the Bible…Washington placed his hand when he took the oath to be President.
Is this why he returned to the location….to remove the Law of Nations from the library and never returned it.
Washington was present at Wilson’s lecture when he stated..the Law of Nations is divine.
I guess you guys would like a link to this amazing story…The Law of Nations is divine.
Ok let the attacks begin…cause the forum must protect obama…it is its purpose for being.
Here is the source: Vattel is quoted numerous times.
The works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D., late one of the …, Volume 1 By James Wilson, Bird Wilson
It is impossible to tell. A useless question such as “How does this story make you feel” only identifies the emotional reaction without the reason why – for or against…
Thanks.
To me it just seemed to be framed towards illegal immigration and not so much classic Obama birthers.
It comes across to me as a bill conceived by birthers (out of hatred for the president), but being touted and applied towards immigration (with no mention of Obama.)
They’re using the emotions of a much wider audience that’s angry over immigration issues towards a more focused nutcase goal of just getting rid of Obama.
So it would appear that “birther” is now being used to describe two different sets of people/beliefs.
(unless Orly is after Mexicans now…) 🙂
Btw…. has she ever won *anything*??
Enter taitz, orly into this:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
Your analysis makes perfect sense to me.
I must take exception. Mr Vattel states: “This forum advocates the law of nations was of no importance to the Framers of the Constitution.”
That is simply not true. I write all the articles on this forum, and I have never said such a thing. I don’t recall others saying this either. I wrote:
Other commenters have said things like:
I must also take exception to the remark: …cause the forum must protect obama…it is its purpose for being.”
This, and your previous remark do more to give us a glimpse into the distortions and prejudices you operate under. I created this forum. I and I along am the sole authority on its purpose. Anything you assert, since you cannot read my mind, stems from your own imagination and it is dangerous to confuse imagination with reality. In fact this forum was created examine and rationally explore conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. If the birthers ever had a real point, it would be acknowledged here.
As for the James Wilson quote, I would have to see it in context. I have seen historical references butchered too many times by the birthers to take anything at face value from them. The book cited is in copyright, and I do not find any way to get the context off the Internet. From the scrap given, one cannot even tell whether “The Law of Nations” even refers to Vattel’s book.
Doc – the book is on google books at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-Yo0AAAAMAAJ&pg=PR3-IA2&dq=The+works+of+the+Honourable+James+Wilson,+L.L.D&hl=en&ei=X19TTbmkCpOdgQeh79GRCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
And if M.Vattel is refering to the parts I think he is, the context is definately the law of nations in general, not Emer de Vattel’s book
Wow he said the Law of Nations was divine? How does this translate to the birther thought of “The law of nations is the basis for our constitution and citizenship law and even though Vattel never once used the phrase natural born citizen he must have meant it, just because and even though Vatel said nothing about birth to two citizens being a requirement for natural born citizen (a phrase he never used) it must somehow be”?
How do you know Wilson wasn’t talking about Christian Wolff’s Law of Nations which came before Vattel’s book? Also how can you infer that Washington actually liked the book? He could have simply never got around to reading it because he had more important things to do and he just forgot about it. It could have been used as a doorstop or to balance his dining room table. You read into things way more than they mean.
lmao. He’s talking about “the law of nations” in the book, not “‘The Law of Nations'”. Another uneducumated birther klan screwup.
He says, “The law of nations is divine,” not “‘The Law of Nations’ is divine.
I guess this is the only way some birthers can make themselves feel better.
Trying to find any sliver of something that supports their warped POV.
I saw on one blog where the writer has decided he has the perfect answer too:
At a prearranged date and time, he wants everyone to pull to the side of their road or highway, honk their horns and flash their lights.
In his mind, this will create a distraction large enough to get the media’s attention and *finally* they can get the word out about the ebil ursurper.
Somehow, I don’t think congress is going to impeach the president because someone honked their horn on a freeway, but it makes perfect sense to him.
He doesn’t even see any safety or legal problems from it.
A quick search shows Vattel is referenced 3 times.
One problem they have is that the translation of Vattel which includes the phrase “natural-born citizen” first appeared in 1797. This is the full title of Wilson’s book:
The works of James Wilson, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States …:being his public discourses upon jurisprudence and the political science, including lectures as professor of law, 1790-2, Volume 1
So during the period 1790-1792 Wilson supposedly was influenced by a Vattel phrase which didn’t even appear in print until 1797. Yeah, right.
And of course it’s typical of birthers to conflate the phrase “law of nations” with the title of Vattel’s book.
By contrast, Blackstone is quoted 27 times.
Volume 2 has one Vattel reference (in the index) and 48 Blackstone references.
Volume 3 has zero Vattel references, and 14 Blackstone references.
I’ll need to return to Volume 3 at some point, and look at chapter XI, “Of Citizens and Aliens.” At one point, it uses Calvin’s Case to smack down the myth that the US had rejected English Common Law:
And if they actually understood Vattel instead of using his name or his book in a fetishistic way, they’d realize they’re barking off the wrong tree.
The view of Wilson on aliens and how hard we should make it for them to become full citizens:
He points out how naturalized aliens were restricted from public office in England, and states, “What a very different spirit animates and pervades her American sons!”
Yeah, he doesn’t seem to be the type to fear and loathe foreigners the way birthers seem to. He reveled in the fact that a mere 9 years after coming to our shores, a foreigner could be serving in our Congress. (2 years to become a citizen, 7 years for eligibility for the House)
Wilson disagrees with alot of Justice Blackstone’s writings, on the otherhand, he seems to love Lord Coke.
Wilson curiously defined “citizens” as those given the right to vote or participate in the legislation of the country. He defined a Pennsuylvanian citizen by reciting Pennslyvania voting requirements and points to his prior recitation of the voting requirement sin each state as the definition of citizens in such states. The rest of his discussion of aliens and allegiance are all English law. Hence, his view appears to be that one was born a natural born subject and only becomes a citizen if given the right to vote. Not the normal definition obviously.
It seems to be the natural rights/political rights distinction we see in other contexts.
Interesting article in the Phoenix New Times about the hearing on SB1308 and SB1309. It appears that the sponsor’s Constitutional “expert,” John Eastman, was eviscerated by both Democratic and Republican opponents of the bills.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/02/post_7.php
Tip of my hat to Oh For Goodness Sake blog for the link.
In fairness – there are more refered to as “Vat…” in footnotes.
We do know that Wilson defined “native” in accordance with Blackstone, not Vattel. In the debates, he was quite offended by the suggestion that congressmen be limited to natives as he pointed out that him and two other delegates from Pennsylvania were not born in this country and would be excluded by such provision. As described by McHenry’s notes:
“Mr. Willson expressed himself feelingly on the same side. It might happen, he said, that he who had been thought worthy of being trusted with the framing of the Constitution, might be excluded from it. He had not been born in this country. He considered such exclusing as one of the most galling chains which the human mind could experience. It was wrong to deprive the government of the talents virtue and abilities of such foreigners as might chuse to remove to this country.”
Hard to imagine Wilson would want an even more restrictive requirement that would deprive talents of foreigners and some natives.
Not that unusual at the time – I’ve seen a number of 18th & 19th century works that go that route. It never seems to have got much traction in the courts and Minor really made it untenable.
Gee look who is back with their natural born citizen formula
http://www.mediaite.com/online/robert-gibbs-doesnt-take-birther-bait-in-sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-egypt-remarks/
————–
borderraven says:
February 9, 2011 at 11:32 pm
1 2
1. A US citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch, but not the Executive Branch, is:
a. any naturalized US Citizen
b. A US-born US citizen using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP
Thus:
i. (USA)+(USA)+(ALIEN) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN
ii. (USA)+(ALIEN)+(USA) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN
c. A foreign-born US citizen using the formula:
i. (FOREIGN)+(USA)+(ALIEN) = FOREIGN BORN US DUAL CITIZEN
ii. (FOREIGN)+(ALIEN)+(USA) = FOREIGN BORN US DUAL CITIZEN
2. US Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, is:
a. Using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP
Thus:
i. (USA)+(USA)+(USA) = US NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
And the usual closet birthers blaming “liberals” for bringing up or continuing birther stupidity.
So, Joseph Farah and his klan are liberals? Walter Fitzpatick, Hairy Citizen Larry Wells, Gerry “Cheetos Stained, Girl Stalker” Nance, Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, Andy Martin, Hate Kate Vandemoer, Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake, Harpy Sharon Rondeau, Gary Kreep, Margaret Hemenway, Dianna Cotter aka “Danae”are liberals?
What is more interesting is how Palin and some other more desperate GOP candidates seem intent on pandering to the birthers for their vote in 2012 if you read the following excerpt…
“Palin’s remark doesn’t specifically reference the President’s birth certificate, but her remarks are of a piece with the drumbeat that not only is the President un-American, he’s actually an enemy, determined to weaken our country. Remarks like these, and Palin’s comments to CBN, play well to multiple audiences, but especially to birthers, a voting bloc that other Republicans have proven afraid to offend. The Birthers’ level of discredit makes it risky to actively court them, but not-so-subtle messages like Palin’s hit the mark, while retaining some Birther deniability.”
She’ll provide the ammo too, you betcha. [wink]
Karoche, to quote Orly: Blut und Boden.
More interesting is how the birthers have become so delusional that they actually believe that their nonsense is proof. Look at the following nonsense from the Post and Fail, a letter sent to Sen. Blunt….I really think that birthers believe if they repeat a lie enough it will somehow become magically true….
Dear Senator Blunt:
I am grateful for your reply to my letter of January 7 regarding eligibility requirements, but I am disappointed in your response for several reasons.
1. You must be an honorable man, but you completely ignored the fact that at the time of his birth, Barack H. Obama II owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by Obama himself. Thus you failed to respond to the central point of my letter: because Obama’s father was a foreigner, Obama II is not a “natural born Citizen” (nbC), regardless of where he was born, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. I pointed out that nbC is different from plain citizen, but you write as if the only question is whether Obama was born in Hawaii. It is impossible for someone born with foreign allegiance to be nbC.
2. You quote Article II, Section 1 and then say it is up to the states and the courts to determine eligibility. You completely ignore my argument that Section 3 of the 20th Amendment calls for Congress to act after an unqualified person has been elected to the presidency. No state has the power to in effect override or nullify the MANDATE of Article II, Section 1. Senator Blunt, you solemnly swore to “support and defend the Constitution” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” but now you violate your oath by saying that ensuring eligibility per Artilce II is someone else’s job. That seems unworthy of an honorable man.
3. You deceptively defend your evasion of your duty by saying that “courts have jurisdiction” over eligibility, that “several courts have dismissed cases questioning President Obama’s citizenship,” and that “on December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal” in this matter. You imply that our courts have duly searched for the truth and examined the evidence, but that implication is false, since the courts have never permitted a trial of truth but have instead denied the plaintiffs “standing,” even going so far as to say it is up to Congress–i.e., YOU, honorable sir–to handle the matter.
4. You, having the honor of representing the “Show-Me State,” have let yourself be fooled into accepting Obama’s online computer-generated COLB as proof of Obama’s Hawaiian birth, although that digital image of a purported secondary document lacks specific verifiable documentation such as hospital and doctor’s name, doctor’s signature, and raised seal of the state. Again, you ignored my statement that there is “abundant and credible evidence that Barack H. Obama II was actually born in Kenya.”
With my previous letter to you dated September 12, which you did not answer, I enclosed a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate with these comments, which I now ask you to consider thoughtfully:
Unlike the purported secondary document from Hawaii, which Hawaii has never verified as authentic, the Kenyan Certificate of Birth is a primary document that bears a certificate number, states a hospital of birth, is signed by the doctor, signed by the supervisor of obstetrics, signed by or for the chief administrator who released the document on Feb. 19, 2009, has the imprint of baby Obama’s foot, and bears an official seal.
It does not take an expert in document authentication to see that the Kenyan birth certificate ranks much higher in face validity than the possibly forged document produced by Obama’s own campaign office in 2008.
If there is any question that our Commander-in-Chief is a foreigner, Congress should immediately investigate the facts and hold open, fair hearings to definitively ascertain the truth.
5. You have been furthered snookered into accepting the Annenberg Public Policy Center as being some sort of legitimate authority on document authentication, whereas the actual source for the pseudo-validation of Obama’s COLB was FactCheck.org, a two-person leftist website that is a political arm of the Annenberg Foundation. This is the same foundation that funded the Chicago Challenge, run by Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, so it can hardly be considered an objective source of truth. I wish you were wise as well as honorable.
6. I appreciate your offer to converse further on Facebook, but as your constituent I am asking you to take action on my behalf. Specifically, I ask that you do whatever is needed to have a congressional committee fully and fairly investigate Obama’s eligibility. If a congressional committee finds that president-elect Obama is not eligible per Article 2, Section 1, I ask you to sponsor a bill or joint resolution saying Obama suffers from a constitutional disability for office in that he does not qualify for the office and that therefore Section 3 of Amendment XX is hereby invoked.
Amend. 20, Section 3 states ” . . . OR [emphasis added because that “or” is key] if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President . . . until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Clearly the Framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of removing an unqualified President AFTER he had been elected. And it does not require impeachment and a trial. The common argument that since Obama won the election we have to live with it is false. Congress should hold hearings and determine once and for all two things:
A. Was Barack Obama born a citizen of the United States? (This has never been established as a legal and verifiable fact. Don’t play ostrich. Make Obama show his authentic, long-form, doctor-signed, officially sealed birth certificate. Show me, Senator, that you are not a coward.)
B. Is Barack Obama a natural born Citizen as that term was used in the Constitution? (In answering this Congress might well request an opinion from the Supreme Court, sans those justices appointed by Obama.)
Finally, may I say that as a Senator you are greatly superior to both Claire McCaskill and Robin Carnahan. You are the best Missouri has to offer this country, as I hope you will soon demonstrate by acting honorably in this matter of great consequence to us all.
Sincerely,
Harry Hunter
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/02/10/mr-senator-show-me-the-proof/
Not only that, but this crap for brains insists on piling on the birther nonsense with a variety of lies as if that makes his b.s. stand for “truthiness”.
It’s brute force birtherism by repeating multiples lies. TWO CITIZEN PARENTS. SQUAWK, KENYA. SQUAWK. COLB. SQUAWK. STANDING. SQUAWK. DOCTOR’S NAME. SQUAWK. BIRTH HOSPITAL. SQUAWK. AYERS. SQUAWK. ANNENBERG. SQUAWK. COWARDS. SQUAWK. SCOTUS RECUSAL. SQUAWK.
He is high from the mentally diseased, fright wing, birther cesspool sites.
Truly sick.
” . . . the Kenyan Certificate of Birth is a primary document that bears a certificate number, states a hospital of birth, is signed by the doctor, signed by the supervisor of obstetrics, signed by or for the chief administrator who released the document on Feb. 19, 2009, has the imprint of baby Obama’s foot, and bears an official seal.”
I have a similar official, “primary” document that swears someone is a pedophile and a serial killer and it applies to anyone named on it.
“If there is any question that our Commander-in-Chief is a foreigner . . .”
Because of those funny, foreign names . . . Barack and Hawaii.
“I ask you to sponsor a bill or joint resolution saying Obama suffers from a constitutional disability for office in that he does not qualify for the office . . .”
In other words, my mental illness, sense of entitlement, disrespect for the law and the Constitution and confirmation bias grants me the power to demand you do what I say regardless of the consequences in order to remove that scary, dark skinned man from office and that we start over as if the election of 2008 never happened.
You have so been ordered.
Another birther fraud.
It appears that this little mistake about the “birther bill” stirred up some controversy as to whose fault it was, station KPHO or the Associated Press who provided the story, but, they claim, not the headline.
Interesting article here:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/02/correction_the_associated_pres.php