Booksellers should consider offering the book, Jerome Corsi’s Where’s the Birth Certificate?, bundled with some standard textbook on Constitutional law so that people won’t be left with the mistaken impression that Corsi tells the truth about presidential eligibility requirements.
Corsi out and out lied when he wrote: “[in] a book titled ‘How a British Subject Became President of the United States’. Hinman argued that [Chester A.] Arthur was not a natural-born U.S. citizen because he was a British subject at birth, a result of his father’s citizenship in the United Kingdom” (WTBC? page 31). I am one of the few people alive who has read that book and it says no such thing.
In fact, the opening sentence of Hinman’s book exposes the lie:
To the Citizens of the United States:
The Constitution of the United States requires that both the President and the Vice-President should be native born. [Emphasis added]
and then summing up on page 37, Hinman wrote:
Realizing that is is only one of the millions of voters of his native country, but believing that the Constitution should be rigidly regarded, and that the nativity of all candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President should be certainly settled and determined before presenting them to the people for their suffrages, he respectfully asks for his book a thoughtful consideration. [Emphasis added]
Since the only copy of Hinman’s book available on the Internet is the copy I scanned and published here (and was subsequently put on Scribd), I am particularly offended by Corsi’s lie tied to my work.
Corsi is a partnter of WND, In WND’s “about” statement they say:
“WorldNetDaily.com Inc. is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. (sure, when pigs fly)
.
Their current Insulting headline says:
Documents Show Marriage of Obama’s Parents a Sham
.
It seems WND, Corsi, and Farah are liars. (scratch the word seems)
Sorry Doc, your copy is not the only copy:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/how-a-british-subject-became-president-of-the-united-states/oclc/6539961
[High John, you idiot. I didn’t say mine was the only copy. I said the only copy “in the Internet.” What you listed is a library holding, probably the same one I borrowed to scan. Doc.]
Doc,
I’m gonna take after Palin’s supporters and alter the online book so it says what Corsi claims.
It’s the birther way.
Well, now another person (me) has read it, for what that’s worth. It’s not Corsi’s only lie in his book, by the way.
What do you make of Senator Bayard’s letter on page 89 of Hinman’s book? Specifically his comment about the naturalization of father/son?
It’s great that when Birthers came up with this Vattelist nonsense, at least they were consistent enough to retcon Chester A. Arthur into ineligibility. It’s the closest thing to honesty you get out of them.
It’s great that when Birthers came up with this Vattelist nonsense, at least they were consistent enough to retcon Chester A. Arthur into ineligibility.
Such is the power of denialism.
Birther: “The Constitution requires that all Presidents be born of two citizen parents! History proves this because Obama is the only President with a non-citizen parent! Therefore Obama is a usurper!”
Skeptic: “Um, Chester Arthur had a non-citizen parent. A non-citizen father, in fact, just like Obama.”
Birther: “Holy crap! There was another President with a non-citizen parent! That means Chester Arthur was ALSO a usurper!”
It hints that Hinman was aware of the true naturalization status or Arthur’s father. I think the fairest reading is Hinman asked (hypothetically) that if someone were born abroad to a non-citizen father, did he become a natural born citizen of the United States when the father naturalized. The Senator’s answer was no. One presumes that this letter is included in the book to exclude the father’s naturalization from making Canadian-born Arthur a natural born citizen of the United States.
However, Hinman never makes any argument based on this letter, always sticking to his premise that Arthur was born in Canada. If Hinman thought that an American-born Arthur was ineligible because of his father’s naturalization then he, a lawyer after all, would have said so, and he would not have used “native born” as a paraphrase of the Constitution’s “natural born.” If a lawyer makes an argument, then you know it.
I think that it’s a plausible assumption is that Corsi is basing his book claim based on the Bayard letter (although lying about it) and that it found about the letter by reading this website, since I have discussed it here before. I do not know to what extent Corsi based his book on this web site (I’m cited only 3 times), but I suspect that it was a good bit.
You blinked… now I can release my new book “Corsi Never Lies” with even MORE confidence.
I take that hint, Doc C, though I find the Senator’s reply odd, given the letter Hinman sent to the Senator (as included) is so bare-bone, without any mention of naturalization issues at all. Are we to believe there was more to this correspondence not included? Well, at any rate, it is clear Hinman made no argument about citizenship via parents.
By birther illogic and fantasy, would that mean the Chinese Exclusion Act that Arthur signed was never valid?
Corsi now offering his book on wnd for $4.95
“any day now” Corsi says “Lies come cheap”
Of course the POTUS is to be ‘native born’.
A ‘natural born Citizen’ is a ‘native born’ if born in the US.
‘native’ does not mean ‘natural’.
‘native’ = of a place
‘natural’ = of the blood, natural genealogical descent, of the parents.
The framers knew the distinct difference between ‘native’ and ‘natural’ and they chose ‘natural’.
The framers would have used the word ‘native’ if that is was they intended …….. but they didn’t, they chose ‘natural’, obviously as the best possible security measure to secure and protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion & claim.
And by what argument would you support your statement that the Framers knew such a thing and did not consider them essentially the same?
Corsi told 51 lies in his last Obama book.
No surprise here.
Hinman wasn’t a founder and Hinman used the term “native-born.” Hinman couldn’t have been arguing that “natural born” didn’t include those born natively.
Oh, and the Founders didn’t want to eliminate ANY foreign influence. Just SOME foreign influence. They were clearly okay with someone living for decades abroad. Okay with foreign education. And apparently okay with dual citizenship attained after birth.
Please do tell me what is the etymology of the words “native” and “natural”?
Are you under the mistaken impression that they are different?
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
But the founders understood natural and native to be the same.
Why didn’t the framers tell them anout the difference?
James Iredell, “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” North Carolina Debate on the Constitution, July, 1788
MichaelN might, in fact, need a few more of these considering how much he pastes all over birtistan:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”
There you go, MichaelN- If you happen to need more, just ask.
2 stupid comments:
Following this logic, the place of birth is now immaterial, as The Framers were only concerned with jus sanguinis. Birther case dismissed.
Was there a rash of unnatural births in the 19th century? clonings? re-animations? test tubes? immaculate conception? Hmmm … pretty sure Frankenstein came out later … *gasp* Frankenstein is autobiographical!!!
No C – section prezzes for Michael!
Is it really possible that anyone is so ignorant to think “native” meant something different that “natural born.” Why do people post opinions when they have done no research to support it. If you don’t know the English conflated the terms “native ” and “natural born,” you simply are ignorant of history. Of course, “natural born,” was the more technical term that was used by English statutes. The framers themselves in the Constitutional Convention used the term “native” when discussing eligibility as native birth was the only requirement discussed. In the North Carolina ratification convention, it was pointed out that the proposed Constitution required the President to be a native. Nearly every early treatise and dictionary, including by scholars who knew the founders like Kent, Tucker and Story, said the President must be a native born citizen. The author of the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Acts said the President must be a native born citizen as did the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment as well as 8 or 9 other members of such Congress. Wong Kim Ark defined “native born citizen” the same as “natural born citizen,” but who cares what the Supreme Court says. In fact, I do not know of any legal authority in the United States that has distinguished between such terms. of course, those are facts and must be wrong as we all know Michael insists everyone, including our framers, are wrong and he is right. Sad really.
How does a father who left Obama when he was still a toddler create a foreign influence, persuasion or claim? How does a child raised entirely by and American Citizen mother and grandparents have a foreign influence from a parent who did not raise him and had very little contact?
The Vattelists keep talking about foreign influence but use a example where the foreign portion was not even in the picture. It is not as if he was raised by his foreign father in a foreign country.
MichaelN may want to review writings about Natural Law, i.e. John Locke. I seem to remember a section discussing when a father has “power” over a child. It Obama’s case, his father never had power over him and thus, any influence would be extremely minimal to non-existence.
Their argument, besides not being correct in terms of US Law and custom, is not even a practical argument for their theory.
speaking of Corsi’s lies, take a look at the ridiculous comments of a Corsi fan birther in denail, it is pathetic (add your own comments of lies if you wish)
http://agapemovement.com/jerome-corsis-new-book-wheres-the-birth-certificate/comment-page-1#comment-6494
If the framers wanted to add a requirement of 2 citizen parents, the framers would have written this requirement into the Constitution, rather than leave it as some sort of legal Easter Egg to be discovered over 220 years later.
Kind of ironic that it’s posted on a site called “agape movement”, isn’t it?
Posted my comment to that patrice777
Hawaiiborn says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm
“Ok, this is the last time I will address this article that was posted. There is no way at all that anyone can read the twins birth certificates.”
Its clear as day. You can read it.
“Are there any red flags to you about Obama’s birth certificate?”
None. It matches the Nordyke’s and similar Hawaii issued COLB’s of the time.
“Do you have any questions that need to be answered?”
My questions were answered the day he released his COLB in August of 2008
“Have you seen any photos of Stanley Ann being pregnant at 17 years of age?”
What does this have to do with eligibility? My sister was pregnant twice. She never took pics of herself pregnant (she complained that she looked like our mother when she was pregnant, and if we wanted to see her pregnant just look at our mother).
” There were photos of her in a bikini around that same time that someone has offered , the photos are supposed to have the date at the bottom of them.”
My friend was pregnant, and didn’t show until she was nearly 6 months along. She looked like she had a beer gut for most of that time, but that ever famous pregnant bump didn’t show till well into her 6 month. She carried low for the first months then carried high the rest of her pregnancy.
Its all the way the baby develops, that gives a woman that shape. some women cna have that luxury of wearing a bikini during pregnancy.
“There is documented proof that Stanley Ann was listed as registered at a university in Washington state at that time. What is your explanation for that? ”
and she was registered in CORESPONDENT courses. Look it up.
“There is no proof of a marriage certificate between Obama and Durham.
Her divorce records have been publicly made. You have to be married in order to get a divorce.
“There is no resemblance of Obama with anyone in the family, either side.”
WTF have you been smoking? Obama looks like Stanley’s father.
“There are more questions than answers. But you harping ”
Only by lunatics. the only harpers are birthers.
“Why did Obama’s half sister say he was born at another hospital in Hawaii?”
She didn’t. that was statement made by a High School editor on a school newspaper.
comments of facts to patrice777 are normally deleted, poor guy is way to deluded, that kind of hate destroys families, that happened to my neighbor (their son in law a deranged birther)
WTBC is now #289 at Amazon and sinking quickly.
What Happened To TV Ad Campaign For Corsi Book (And The Money Farah Begged Readers For To Fund it)?
Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bach in March, we wondered why WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah was begging for money to run commercials for Jerome Corsi’s birther book. Now we must wonder what happened to those commercials — and the money.
In a March 27 article, WND kicked off its publicity campaign for Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” by declaring that “WND needs to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to air these commercials on television networks and stations throughout the country” and begging readers for money, with only the promise of a signed copy of Corsi’s book in return.
But to our knowledge, no commercials for the book have ever aired on TV. And the page at the WND online store to donate to the ad campaign now redirects to a general page about Corsi’s book, with no mention whatsoever about the donation drive.
Full article at link…
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
Dr. Corsi Reveals First Name of Birth Certificate Forger, send more money so he can reveal the last name, what a scam. Corsi raises money to put up billboards, puts up a few in low traffic ares and pockets the balnce, what a scam. Corsi asks for money to sue Esquire Magazine for a satire he can’t sue, he initiates no preliminary actions and won’t sue , what a scam.
Corsi says “Any Day Now” to raise money, yet any day now never comes. People scammed by Corsi love the scamming.
Corsi also promised to produced the license of the supposed private investigator in Hawaii. We haven’t heard anything about that guy recently.
> Corsi also promised to produced the license of the supposed private investigator in Hawaii.
Did he? I only heard him say he could, I could be wrong, though.
Usually he does not promise something he can’t deliver *in some way* (like the forger’s first name, yeah, great) to not offend the less gullible birthers.
> We haven’t heard anything about that guy recently.
Served his purpose. Corsi (and WND) is never about that one convincing proof that, very very maybe, might even get a court case going.
He’s only about throwing lots and lots of mud because he know that, with his audience, everything sticks.
For the birthers, it’s much more important to “know” there are dozens and dozens of things that are “wrong about Obama”, even if not a single one of them would withstand proper scrutiny. At some point, they are all convinced that they don’t *need* any scrutiny because “it’s impossible *so* many things are bogus”.
This is propaganda 101. Common for these people.
A birther on WND refered me to a (right-wing) website that allegedly lists how it was only Democrats who moved for removing the NBC clause from the Constitution.
Just too bad one representative from the list was a Republican.
Of course the birther did not care when I told him.
Is he the one who “just can’t believe what he’s finding”?
Over at ConWebWatch, Doc is again referenced as a rebuttal to Corsi and Vogt….
Corsi Completes Vogt Trilogy, Doesn’t Mention He’s Been Discredited
Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jerome Corsi has turned in to WorldNetDaily the last of three articles on Doug Vogt’s claim that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a fake.
As with the previous two articles, Corsi refuses to acknowledge that the Obama Conspiracy blog has provided a detailed rebuttal discrediting many of Vogt’s claims.
But that’s not all: In an interview with insanely anti-Obama pastor James David Manning — whom WND has presented as a credible critic of Obama without noting that he has repeatedly insulted the president as a “long-legged mack daddy” — Vogt can’t even correctly identify what PDF stands for and falsely claims that a consortium developed the PDF format. In fact, PDF began as a proprietary format created and owned by Adobe Systems, and it did not become an open standard until 2008.
This is Corsi’s “expert,” folks.
It seems that Corsi cares nothing about the truth when it conflicts with his anti-Obama agenda.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
It amazes me how you guys can talk so much without ever saying anything.
Try reading all the words.
That may not help as most birthers have reading comprehension issues.
Would it help if we typed slower… and used smaller words?
I did, and I did. Patrice777 is claiming all of us are the same person, and hiding behind that to avoid dealing with your point. Here’s the comment I added (which 24 hours later still hasn’t received moderator approval):
–Nathanael
Nathanael
notice that your post was deleted, Patrice777 will not allow facts to interfere with his delusions. I have a neighor that has a son-in-law birther. They took in the teen daughter (their grand daughter) as she could not cope with the birther father. really sad, actually probably much like Patrice777 I expect. I hear similar stories from other birthers.
.
their mission:
The Agape Movement’s focus is to restore our founding fathers’ vision for America. We advocate the bond of church and state together without separation.
they use a fake Patrick Henry quote to support this(probably from barton) The Partrick Henry quote does not appear in any of Patrick Henry’s writyings
.
the site seems to project an abundance of hate. Strange for a “Christian” site.
Ironic indeed that it is named “Agape Movement”
A site dedicated to hate, named after a Greek word for “Unconditional Love”
Somebody has also added to the Wikipedia article on Agape “another view” which I have never heard of before and only source is to some website that tries to redefine ancient Greek words or some strange thing.
Given the birthers fondness for redefining terms, proof, facts, reality, etc, it was only time till some of them found others who enjoy redefining scriptural terms.
To be specific, my post wasn’t deleted — it was simply never approved. I’ve since posted at least two other replies to other articles; to date I’m batting zero. I’ve now registered an account on the site to see if that’ll give me a leg up, but I’m not holding my breath.
Not any more 😉
I registered, then sent an email requesting source of their Patrick Henry quote as I did a paper on Patrick Henry and no such statement was written by Henry. No response so far.
(I am sure it is one of Barton’s fake quotes, he is popular with these folks)
As to the history of the fake Patrick Henry quote, there’s a good write-up at http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/fake-quotations-patrick-henry-on-religionists/, and a scan of the 1956 American Mercury page that is apparently the origin of the misattribution at http://rationalrant.blogspot.com/2008/06/patrick-henry-redux.html. It would appear David Barton misread the “above quote” reference as referring to the immediately preceding paragraph, rather than the actual citation three paragraphs back. To his credit, Barton has apparently acknowledged his mistake, but the damage has already been done. Interesting stuff.
–Nathanael
It’s certainly Conspiracy 101. A second common telltale of conspiracy theories is the rapid-fire asking of lots of insinuating questions without the bother of pausing for answers. “Why does Obama’s BC say ‘African’ when we all know it should say ‘Negro’? Why did Obama spend two million dollars trying to hide his BC? How did his mother get to Seattle so fast? Why are there so many abberations in the PDF? Why won’t Obama release his long-from? Why did his grandmother say he was born in Kenya? Where are his Columbia transcripts? There are just way too many unanswered questions, folks, for this to be legit.” Notice that the tactic never actually accuses, it simply insinuates. Reminds me of the penultimate scene from “The Social Network”:
–Nathanael
Good points and great example from an excellent movie!
It’s not the only time that Barton has touted a phony quotation.
http://candst.tripod.com/misq1.htm
> only source is to some website that tries to redefine ancient Greek words or some strange thing
Not uncommon. In my country, right-wing extremists claim that “demos” (the Greek word from which “democracy” stems) actually means “scum”, thus “democracy” allegedly means “scum’s rule”. (Naturally, because they don’t like democracy but prefer a fascist system.) After all, most extremists have learned that redefining words is one of the strongest powers in history.
Just like the religious extreme right here has managed to convince themselves that tolerance is bad for society.
http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/SinOf.htm
Yes. Barton’s research is … well, to be charitable, sloppy. I certainly don’t intend to defend that! Admitting one’s mistakes, however, is always commendable, no matter how disingenuous one was in making them.
–Nathanael
I think you mischaracterize the article. While I find plenty to disagree with in it, I think, in its main thrust, the author has a point: tolerance can be good or bad — it all depends on what we’re tolerating. Would you approve of tolerance of, say, pedophilia or hate crimes? In the language of the article, toleration of evil is no virtue.
–Nathanael