[This article first appeared as a comment from me at Birther Report.]
For those who haven’t been following the story, Douglas Vogt’s now unsealed affidavit highlights all sorts of problems for birthers.
First, here is the Johanna Ah’Nee birth certificate for those who haven’t seen it. This came through Orly Taitz.
Notice that block 9, the Race of the Father is “Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese” with a penciled code of “3”. Block 14, the Race of the Mother is “Hawn-Caucasian-Korean” also coded “3”.
Birther Miki Booth vouches for the authenticity of this certificate [Jerome Corsi called it “authentic” too], but what does it do to the birthers? First Mike Zullo’s 1960/61 Race code table has code “3” meaning American “Indian,” which is not the same as “Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese.” Zullo also emphatically stated that the race codes on the forms were double-checked and error free. So either Zullo presented fake codes or the Ah’Nee certificate is a fake. There is no other alternative. (For reference, the real meaning for Code 3 in Hawaii was “Part Hawaiian.”)
The second problem is that birthers, since the beginning of time, have claimed that only a short list of values could appear on a birth certificate for Race, and certainly “Hawn-Caucasian-Korean” was NOT on that list. So birthers have been deeply mistaken about how race is recorded on birth certificates, or this certificate is a fake.
However, Miki Booth is firmly with Team Arpaio and represents that Zullo thinks the certificate is genuine.
On the other hand, Doug Vogt has this certificate numbering scheme he dreamed up to prove Obama’s certificate number is wrong. But again the Ah’Nee certificate totally contradicts the Vogt numbering scheme, and BOTH of them contradict the numbering scheme in Mike Zullo’s affidavit. Vogt of course, says that every certificate that contradicts his numbering scheme must be a forgery (if the evidence doesn’t fit the theory, discard it). This certificate dismantles ALL of the birther certificate numbering claims because Ah-Nee was born towards the end of the month, but has a certificate numbered way below Obama’s (and below the Nordyke’s).
Even those on Birther Report who like to make fun of the registrar’s signature on the Obama certificate, calling it “ukelele” are brought to heel by this certificate with the same signature.
So basically you have one story from Zullo, one story from Vogt and one story from Booth. No more than one of them can be true.
Booth is telling the truth. Zullo and Vogt just make stuff up.
Vogt has turned on Booth in a big way. What will Zullo do to cover up his fake evidence?
Stay tuned for the next episode of “As the Birther Turns.”
I love it when birthers butt heads, over conflicting crank theories! It gets especially good, when they start accusing one another of being obots.
According to Mark Gillar the “Hawn-Caucasian-Korean” entry should have been struck out and the term “part-Hawaiian” entered.
….or the next cartoon episode of “The Screwy Squirrels.”
Maybe we should all reach out and comfort Miki before they start referring to her as the “Obot Princess.” (Group hug.) Should we get her some Obot Kits too? 😉
Today was fun!
Although I haven’t seen my long form for over 30 years (lost), the COLB I got in 2003 says Mothers race: Chinese Hawaiian Caucasian.
Will be interesting to see how the birthers split off into different factions.
Better that than the other body parts they are so obsessed with.
Birtherstan is decompensating right before our very eyes.
Don’t count on it too much. The lunacy that became Birtherism is essentially the hate-tempered refusal of Birthers to admit the absurd irreconcilable incongruity of all of the insufficiently evidenced, mutually exclusive conclusory allegations upon which Obama’s alleged Presidential ineligibility and “disqualifying” criminality is claimed to individually OR collectively, depend.
Additionally, if each and every particular Birther Obama-damning theory were disproved sufficiently to convince its Birther adherents that it was essentially flawed and admittedly incorrect, Birthers would still coalesce to support as a natural outcome of all of their accusations being conclusively proven false, an unapologetic and righteous declaration that “this issue is not going away!”
These are some very sick people, not given to logical thinking nor constrained to sensible planning.
Benji…
“These are some very sick people,….”
They have proven that once again today.
FAKE !!
You know, when Vogt gets the chance to dissect all Hwn BC’s with his very sharp eyes and tools and his even sharper brain we will finally see that there are no valid Hwn BC’s at all.
These islands are fictuous. You can imagine by whom and why they were created. The name begins with “S” and ends with “s”.
Besides, according to them, “since when is Korean a race and not a nationality”? If Obama’s BC had something like “Arab-Kenyan” as “race of father”, you bet birthers would find big fault with that, too.
Smithers? 😉
They’re in a perpetual state of “What difference does it make?”. Even the different factions believing in different fathers (FMD, Malcolm X, the Subud cult founder, Markus Wolf, …) don’t really fight each other much. It’s like several religions teaming up to “fight atheism”. The Triple Crown of Hate (he’s black, successful and the result of “race betrayal”) is the Great Unifier.
Sandwich Islands, yes? If I remember correctly.
“So, Lord Douchebag, what have you been working on lately?” –the Earl of Sandwich
The Earl of Sandwich was an avid card player. To be able to eat while playing he ordered (invented ?) sandwiches.
For the rest you got me wrong. I speak about the islands of Hawai’i, which must be fictuous because all of the purported inhabitants have fake BC’s.
Is this the basis of the universe shattering event? If so, this puts a whole new definition to the word failure. Zullo/Corsi didn’t do their due diligence. Perhaps they just assumed the information confirmed their bias even though every piece of information they present never seems to pan out. I guess they have faith and that’s supposed to get them their “any day now” fantasy. LOL
I doubt it. Vogt never seemed close to the CCP. And him unsealing (or having to unseal) his mighty secret affidavit has effectively destroyed its perceived power in Birtherstan.
If anything, it will teach Zullo two lessons:
1. It was a very wise decision to not publish the Reed Hayes report.
2. If you didn’t have a “way out” plan before, just claim all the most universe-shattering stuff is in a new sealed affidavit to be sent to [wherever], and you all have to wait just another few months until this has run its course. (And you can keep the birthers happy with a presser that just hints at its scope, like “it’s about his citizenship” and “it’s about Obots and DARPA” and “it’s about who knew what when” etc.)
After all, if it’s “sealed”, it must be powerful. Just look how the claim Obama has “sealed” his records has convinced people they must contain something big.
I think Ah’Nee’s BC also showed that much of Vogt and Irey’s analysis of the lettering and alignment was BS. As Vogt’s secret affidavit demonstrates, hers has a lot of the same quirks as Obama’s. Of course, to him, that means they are both forged, but to a sane person, that means his underlying assumptions about the typewritten text (that each instance of each letter should be identical and everything should be perfectly aligned both vertically and horizontally) are wrong.
Yes, the facts are that the Ahnee and the Booth documents undermined any claims of forgery and therefor they had to be fakes…
This is a world where data and facts have to be made to fit the wishful thinking.
I can hardly inmagine that Shurf Joe is interested in the BC any more. He is streetwise enough to know about a certain razor, even if he does not know the namegiver.
The Sheriff has his hands full with Judge Snow.
The only way he would venture back into the birther swamp is if he thought it would give him some advantage there but I think that cow has left the barn.
Rhetorical question: Do the mentally ill stop being mentally ill when it is pointed out to them that they are suffering from mental illness.
Suranis? I always knew he was up to something.
The only thing I can figure is that Dougy never ever looked at a birth/death certificate before he became a self proclaimed “eggspert”, cause if he had he would have seen, well not really since it would spoil his carefully and cleverly crafted theory, that they are full of anomalies, oddnesses, and errors. Things don’t/never line up, spacing is odd and off, and there are almost always several typewriters of varying condition and readability used in completing them, with slightly different fonts, and they just generally aren’t perfect. It wasn’t until the advent of computer generated forms that you got even, correctly spaced and formatted documents. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a typewritten one that was, and I’ve looked at more than I can count over the years. He obviously never worked in an office if he thinks they processed each document as it came in. In a situation like that you would do a rough sort as they come in over the course of the month and a final clean sort and processing after month end, and you would still probably wait for stragglers to come in to get the end of month in as well. So there would be oddnesses about the numbering as well, as well as just general order errors that happen in final processing.
What it boils down to is Dougy is NOT an expert in several fields.
Doc:
Henry Blake is very upset with you:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/this-is-the-correspondence-that-i-received-i-am-asking-for-comments-on-the-matter-i-am-not-an-expert-an-expert-is-stating-that-mr-davidson-used-this-alan-bc-as-a-reconstructed-obama-lfcolb-an/
Irregardless of the forged birth certificate issue, there is still one indisputable fact being overlooked. A “Natural Born American Citizen” cannot be born to a foreign father, whose citizenship, and allegiance, is under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.
—
Gee, never thought of that….
Seriously, though, check Doc’s archives for probably the most comprehensive analyses on this subject on the planet.
Which eliminates children born to foreign dignitaries who enjoy immunity as well as children born to invading military and in the US for a while, children born to Indians not paying taxes. Those are the common law exceptions.
If birthers were only able to familiarize themselves with facts..
And “irregardless ” isn’t even a word; you are made of failure, on every level.
Wow!! This is really new.
But….but….what if the “father” is a traitor or has denounced his citizenship with that “foreign country”? How do we handle that?
And……and……what if we don’t know who the father is……like, you know….the mother slept around a lot?
What about an immaculate conception? Could Jesus be the President?
Boy…..you’ve sure opened up a can of worms.
That’s really stupid.
Incorrect. There is nothing in the constitution about parental citizenship. Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of the united states and was a citizen at birth.
Our Founding Fathers worked and died in order to bring this great nation out of the bondage of merit by birth, where what you could be was dictated by who your father was, foisted on them by European Monarchies, and you would bring us back to those dark days?
Why do you hate America, Kevin L?
Obviously there is no one here with a grasp of natural law. Cows do not give birth to horses, horses do not give birth to dogs, nor do dogs give birth to cats. As such it follows a child is what the parents are. A child born to parents with differing citizenship at best, acquires dual citizenship through an act of miscegenation. Dual citizenship and “natural born citizen” being mutually exclusive as dual citizenship means divided allegiance. the very condition the “natural born citizen” clause of our Constitution was meant to prevent in the office of the president. “Natural born citizen” is a condition of birth which no statutory act can recreate. Only naturalized citizens can be created through a statutory act. Again not the same, and mutually exclusive.
There being only two commonly known sources for the phrase ” natural born citizen”. That being our own Constitution, and Vattel’s treatise “The Law Of Nation”, And being that it is well established that (at least to those who have bothered to seek out truth) said book was well known and extensively source by all the founding father, and was considered the cornerstone of the library of the major institutes of higher learning as far up as the early twentieth century, it would be perfectly reasonable to presume that the founding fathers expected the intent of the “natural born citizen” clause was well understood and need not be specifically defined in the Constitution itself.
Apparently they were not adequately concerned about the extent of atrophy of “Common Sense” the true American citizens of this country would ultimately succumb to, and to the extent to which they will welcome infiltrators into our highest office.
1. The United States does not follow natural law; it follows the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted (primarily) by the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. No court has ever said that dual citizenship and natural born citizenship are mutually exclusive.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court, has repeatedly and explicitly ruled that terms used in the U.S. Constitution are to be understood under the nomenclature of English common law.
4. Vattel never wrote the phrase “natural born citizen.” Not once.
You must mean Jesus’s virgin birth (since immaculate conception refers to Mary). I can think of one way the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity does Christianity a disservice: it made Jesus’s brother, James, less important than he would have been otherwise.
The early Jesus movement was led by James, in Jerusalem. He was called James the Just because the focus of his ministry was to serve the poor. Eventually, Christianity moved away from the Jewish provincialism embodied by James, in favor of the gilded churches of Rome.
As with Jesus, Obama’s parentage and the circumstances of his birth make all the difference to many people (I hesitate to compare the two, lest people think I consider them equals, but I do find the “birther” parallels fascinating). To make Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah, he had to be born in Bethlehem, the Son of God. To make Barack Obama the Devil, he had to be born in Kenya, to a foreign-born communist.
Or, to Malcolm X, or Mohammad Subud, or a lizard person, or…
Yes……that’s what I meant. Maybe Mr. Lankford can explain James to us.
Isn’t it ironic (but entirely predictable) how birthers are throwing Miki Booth under the bus? She’s spent years spreading false rumors about people, now she finds herself on the receiving end of this ugly trend. (That’s karma, baby!) There’s certainly no honor among frauds. She messed with shit and ended up getting it all over her, which is a lesson every hard core birther is likely to experience in some form or another.
What’s sad is the fact that she’ll likely still beat the drums of sedition, calling for overthrow of our elected government. I doubt people like that will ever change.
“The Law of Nations”
Chapter xlx
212 Citizens and Natives
You have not actually read it, have you?
Are you saying race determines a person’s citizenship?
And what about the critters? How do they acquire their citizenship? Am I going to have to get a passport for my cat if we go to Canada?
Obviously, your post is asinine and delusional birther nonsense inspired by the bigoted lunacy of Adrien Nash.
And again, that’s really stupid.
Let’s read for the first time, shall we?
Where is the phrase “Natural Born Citizen?”
And some crank on the Internet (you) knows more than 10 US Courts who have ruled your view wrong. Yeah, right.
Wow- we don”t see the term miscegenation used often…….
And so terribly incorrectly either.
But the use of that term makes motivation very suspect.
—
Right, humans give birth to humans.
—
Reminder: You lost the Civil War.
I’ll see your Swiss law philosopher who never set foot on these shores and raise you a natural born citizen American Founding Father, Framer and President: “The Father of the Constitution,” James Madison: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States. it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton
They can’t throw Miki under the bus without throwing Zullo under the bus.
—-
How tragic that James Madison succumbed so quickly–even before he signed the Constitution…
Uh… Have you not read US v Wong Kim Ark? The term natural born was to be found in common law where it used to mean and continued to mean ‘born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents’
Stop being such an ignoramus.
Of course not, but he has a lot of hearsay that he willing to repeat without being aware of how the courts have resolved the matter.
So easily misled by rumors and innuendo, it’s shocking how people abandon any original thought to third parties when it comes to these things.
Indeed! It was kind of understandable 50-years ago when I first had these discussions with people and all they had to back up their argument was a mimeographed flyer.
Today there’s no excuse but there is an explanation: They don’t care about the truth.
Lol have you read the original french? It doesn’t say what you think it does. Lupin who is a regular on this site is a french jurist and took the liberty of translating the section for you. See here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/
Mr. Lankford must be new here.
This is a reply I left at BR (quickly removed)
AND THUS IT ENDS
As more and more birthers awaken to the fact that Zullo has nothing, and that Carl Gallups has been jerking them along for over two years, with no payout what so ever, they are like the Y2K people the morning after.
The bitterness and anger will continue to rise as they turn on each other to blame their own gullibility in believing the lie.
This should be good!
😀
For some reason the comment above was “removed by moderator” from BR
Which is a confirmation.
😀
I wonder how he’s going to feel about Orly when he notices she published his bellsouth email address…
This is the follow-up, post Mainly to just rub it in, as I have been watching for this moment for 2 years:
Sheriff Arpaio has not been on the Carl Gallups show for the last 2 years (In fact, has Sheriff Arpaio EVER been on Carl Gallups show to endorse the findings of Mike Zullo?
The comment was about the fact the birthers are now turning against each they realize that they’ve ben had.
You can delete this post, but it won’ change the facts
Dr C deserves all the credit, as no one has worked harder at dismantling the birthers.
Enjoy your vacation Doc!
Sit back and just watch the whow.
Poor John:
Report
Reply
+11
‘s avatar – Go to profile
Jim Youngblood · 7 hours ago
Doug Vogt is a loon. His sealed report is complete nonsense.
Report
Reply
3 replies · active 5 hours ago
+17
★FALCON★’s avatar – Go to profile
★FALCON★ 138p · 6 hours ago
You’re a loon Jim – telling everyone that the ZeroX 666-7779 must be refuted.
It’s time that the rest of you lying O-Holes come out, proudly. And admit your allegiance. You’re not fooling anyone who has been paying attention to your asinine posts.
Report
Reply
+7
★FALCON★’s avatar – Go to profile
★FALCON★ 138p · 5 hours ago
By the way loon – it’s unsealed.
Bootlicker.
Report
Reply
+5
‘s avatar – Go to profile
Jared Daniel Dent · 5 hours ago
Yea Jim Falcons right. Your a Obama a** sucker.
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/05/miki-booth-unloads-on-vogt-hes.html
From this assertion it follows, necessarily and absolutely, that you understand that the laws of foreign countries are superior to the United States Constitution.
If the citizenship laws of a foreign country, (for example lets say, the United Kingdom, Kenya, or North Korea) can claim a person as a citizen of their country even though they are born in the United States, that person is going to be a dual citizen. If ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘dual citizen’ are mutually exclusive, then that foreign country (ANY foreign country, in fact) has absolute control over who and who may not be the President of the United States.
Suppose that North Korea had, in 1955, chosen to make every person born in the United States since 1901 a citizen of North Korea? Exactly who would be left that was eligible to be President of the United States?
The question then is, why do you hate the U.S. Constitution, America, and Americans?
What possible benefit do you get from asserting such ignorant, seditious lies?
—-
Bingo.
Vattel did not write ‘natural born citizens’. Not in paragraph 212 and not anywhere else. A translator inserted the phrase about 100 years AFTER Vattel wrote his treatise.
But what Vattel did write is:
And then there are other states such as England in which the mere birth in that country is enough to make the children of a foreigner a citizen
Law of Nations”
Chapter xlx
214 Naturalization
Dear Mr. Lankford:
Even though this subject has been discussed (and resolved) many times before on this site, let me bring you up to date.
I am a French lawyer who has edited Vattel’s translations in English. I was in fact brought to this site initially because of the frequent incorrect interpretations of Vattel by American “birthers” such as yourselves and my need to rectify them.
Assuming for argument’s sake that:
(1) Vattel’s Law of Nations in its original form were to apply in Mr. Obama’s case (it clearly doesn’t, no more than it applies in France or Switzerland today), and
(2) Vattel’s French terminology of “naturels” and “indigene” was/is correctly translated as “natural-born citizen (a highly debatable point),
the facts are nevertheless as follows:
Nowhere does Vattel state that citizenship must be transmitted by two parents who are also citizens. In fact, quite the contrary: he states that it is transmitted through the father.
Note that this was later amended in a footnote to the second edition [should be 1863 French edition. Doc.] to include the mother in the event of a child born out of wedlock.
Also note that word “parens” in French actually include all blood relatives (and not just the two biological parents) so the child can acquire citizenship through an uncle, a grandfather, etc. should the circumstances above not apply.
Needless to say, all European countries such as France which initially adopted Vattel’s mode of transmission of citizenship (in our case, under the Napoleonic Code) later amended it to place father and mother on equal footing.
The single most famous legal case that is like Mr. Obama’s in France is that of the writer Emile Zola, born of an Italian father and a French mother in the 19th century. Zola acquired French citizenship only upon his majority but went on to have a brilliant political career. Obviously today he would have had that citizenship at birth because if his mother. But in both sets of circumstances, he was considered an “indigene”.
Further, as pointed out before, Vattel only described or codified what was happening in France, Switzerland and Germany; he happily noted that England was following a different system (jus soli) without challenging it.
With respect to dual citizenship, please note that James Madison was made a French citizen (and accepted such citizenship in writing) before he ran for President. The issue was raised during his campaign, but quickly dismissed. Therefore there seems to be no legal obstacle to your President being a dual citizen.
There really is nothing in Vattel’s Law of Nations that would disqualify Mr. Obama from being considered a “naturel” or “indigene” according to the circumstances of his birth even if he had been born in Switzerland in the 18th century.
If you believe that these terms are equivalent to “natural-born citizen”, then Mr. Obama is one, despite the fact that his father was not an American citizen.
I’m afraid to say that most of what you read about Vattel in America from unqualified sources such as Mr. Apuzzo or Mr. Donofrio is pure rubbish. I have challenged Mr. Apuzzo repeatedly to quote one single French source who would agree with him in 200+ years of Vattel scholarship and he could not find one — because there are none.
I am sorry you have been deceived and I hope this very brief exposé might set things right.
Falcon is so angry that he will attack anything and anyone but with no real success. Life must suck for Falcon.
Did Zullo see this coming and got out?
Now that’s a dumb analogy if ever there were one. Comparing different species to different types of citizen (hint for you lovers of “natural law”: citizenship is entirely man-made, not “natural” or “divine”).
Another hint: is a “natural born killer” someone who was born to be a killer or someone whose parents both were killers? 😉
I am a musician born of two musicians, so that would make me a “natural born musician.” If I am NBM, then why do have have to practice so darn much?
It is a real word alas
No. Just because enough people abuse the language, they don’t win.
Dr. Conspiracy
May 13, 2014
“They can’t throw Miki under the bus without throwing Zullo under the bus.”
Their lack of reasoning powers have helped them to not see this connection. They have thrown Miki under the bus. They have unknowingly thrown the Birther movement along with Zullo and Arpaio under the bus. If the loon called FALCON has any ability to see the damage he is doing with his rabid support for Vogt, he will quickly go to the aid of the “Birther Princess.”
Doc, in your opinion, are we seeing the biggest of the birthers’ hopes coming unraveled? It seems to me the one thing, the only thing, holding birtherstan together right now, is Zullo’s narrative.
I remember learning it from (Monaco princess) Stephanie’s song “Irresistible” (chorus: “Irresistible, irresponsible, irregardless of reason”) but since I hardly ever used it, it never occurred to me it was wrong. 🙂
Frank Arduini, quick, adjust your irony meter. I just read the last two posts on Amo P…..
Birthers have a remarkable tolerance for cognitive dissonance. For the birther movement to come “unraveled” it would have to have been woven at some point; it never was.
I’m not predicting a tipping point, but you never know.
Exactly as Doc says birthers won’t notice the contradiction. Since the beginning birthers have been known to believe multiple contradicting things. Most of what they believe cannot at the same time be true.
Good point! If they’re this insane as it is, why should logic enter into the equation at all!
And there it is.
Oh. Well that changes EVERYTHING. Who would have suspected that, after all these years, and these millions of words expended, such a conclusive, overwhelmingly persuasive and entirely NOVEL argument could be made in ten simple words? We are, beyond any doubt, in the presence of greatness. I shall run a warm bath and open my veins.
It’s hilarious watching the blue falcon spin and flip in rage as he lashes out like a 5 year old 🙂 He is utterly obsessed with Doc and Foggy. Plus, he confirms that he reads here on a daily basis. Hi birdboy!
ROTFL, yes, it is fascinating how he allows himself to be ‘manipulated’ by his fears and ignorance… He makes for quite a study subject. Totally powerless to change anything, even his own diapers.
Well, Doc and Foggy better watch out…he’s also totally infatuated with homosexuals. 😆
Speaking for all Birthers, Mr. Lupin Who Sane Obotter:
Unfortunately, your statements about Vattel are those of a real French scholar of the language, setting forth the real meaning of the entirety of what that Swissman really wrote about this subject. We Birthers will not be dissuaded by the truth or any other Saul Alinsky prescribed manifestation of reality. We don’t need foreigners telling us how to not think.
I’m done with your toast too.
BR’s resdent priapisms are of no concern.
I often deride birfers’ activities as onanistic, but… [sound of crickets]. Apparently they either agree or never bother to look it up.
Orly Taitz has expressed skepticism that she is the source of the unredacted birth certificate for Ah’Nee, saying that she doesn’t think she ever published an unredacted version.
For this reason, I have replaced the link to the certificate in my article with one pointing directly to Orly’s site, so there’s no doubt where it came from. The Taitz version is a PDF and shows both front and back, revealing that it was issued in 1995.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Johanna-BC.pdf
Are you saying that it was Taitz who made available the Ah’Nee birth certificate which disproved accusations of forgery and now has to be considered a forgery itself.
Seems that she is between a rock and a hard place. Either she defends the document and she destroys the “case” against the LFBC or she rejects the document and has to explain why she allowed herself to be used as a pawn? Of course, she seemed very willing to present these documents.
The poor birthers are eating their own, once again. So predictable. Paranoia, hatred and lousy attention to logic…
nbc
“The poor birthers are eating their own, once again. So predictable. Paranoia, hatred and lousy attention to logic…”
Wait until the birthers discover that FALCON is our real mole. Watch them devour FALCON Mc Nuggets! Ummm, Umm, Good! Pass the soy sauce please.
Both Orly and Falcon… Moles… Now that is an interesting thought… Who better to represent the craziness of the birther movement?
If English was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for that Vattel boy as well …
Well, honestly, FALCON overplayed his role. No birther took him serious. They laughed behind his back and called him “groundhog”. No Soros bucks, I guess the frogmen are waiting for him ….
I can’t trace all the paths that certificate went through, but Taitz published an unredacted copy in December, 2013.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Johanna-BC.pdf
I learned that word back when Pee Wee Herman got into trouble. Of course it is named after the Bible character Onan who “spilled his seed” rather than impregnating (IIRC) the wife of his deceased brother.
One of the unfortunate Tamars in the Bible, but a very canny woman.
I loved that bit! 🙂
I grew up when “onanieren” was used instead of the more modern (and gender neutral) “masturbieren” in German. Interesting to see it’s in the English language as well.
Lupin:
your “Dear Mr. Lankford” post should be re-posted over and over
Thank you.
I wonder why I bother.
But then, if any of us didn’t, we wouldn’t be here, would we? 🙂
Unlike our host, whose mettle I admire, at least I don’t go on BR trying to enlighten the alpha primitives. (Marvel Comics joke)
Lupin:
i am in no way as proficient as you are but i once posted a simple french phrase for apuzzo to translate into english and he told me to “ask a french waiter”
i look forward to your posts …. kudos and keep them coming – you add another dimension to “our host, whose mettle I admire” too
I couldn’t agree more, Donna.
Lupin, something caught my eye when I was re-reading your translation, as linked above by Dr. Kenneth: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/
You translated “Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il faut être né d’un père Citoyen” (thanks to Northland 10 for posting that above) as
“I say that to belong to a homeland, one must be born of parents who are citizens.”
I’ve seen Vattel’s choice of words described here more than once as being something akin to, “only children of members may use the pool.” But in your translation above, you use the singular word “one” and the plural word “parents.” If I were a birther bigot, I’d jump all over that.
I understand why you inserted the gender-neutral “parent” instead of “father” for the word “père”, but wouldn’t it be more accurate to translate “il faut être né d’un père Citoyen” as “One must be born of a citizen parent”?
Yeah, tell that to Screaming Lord Monckton too while you’re at it.
Literally, it should be: “one must be born of a citizen father.”
“Parens” comes first in Vattel’s text, which is the more general clause. That’s the bit birthers seize upon, ignoring the group plural (swimming pool analogy).
Then, after that, Vattel gets more specific, arguably contradicting what he just wrote a couple of lines above, and says: “citizen father” only.
Obviously reasonable scholars may disagree, but I myself don’t see this as a contradiction, but only as an order of priority, if you will, i.e.: the general principle first, meaning citizenship can be transmitted by any blood relative; then the ranking order: father first, then mother (as was added in the 2nd edition) etc.
Which is why I phrased it the way I did in my initial translation.
As I mentioned elsewhere, all the countries which adopted Vattel’s father-based system (such as France) eventually changed it later to make it sex neutral, so it would be ridiculous to impose on 21st century USA a system already abandoned/updated by any other jus sanguinis country, n’est-ce-pas?
Furthermore, even under the father-based system, citizenship was automatically granted via the mother upon majority and that carried no discrimination in terms of being allowed to run for public office, So even allowing a strict 18th century interpretation of Vattel, Mr. Obama could have run for President in France in the 19th century.
To pick and choose & misuse what part of Vattel may or may not apply to 21st century USA and Obama’s case is, frankly, absurd.
When his back is against the wall, Meretricious Mario (as I’ve nicknamed him) typically resorts to sarcasm.
At least he’s not nailing people’s head to the table. (Monty Python joke)
Lupin: thank you 30 million times for your reply (one for each sad little selfl-proclaimed patriot who couldn’t make it to OAS today, due to prom conflicts, or whatever). I apologize if I’m being overly concerned with minutiae here.
I also don’t see a contradiction in Vattel’s text.
Ex. #1: “Natives or indigenes are those born in that country from blood relatives who are already citizens.” [no problem -> swimming pool analogy]
Ex. #2: “I say that to belong to a homeland, one must be born of a parent who is a citizen.”
Those are two perfectly consistent statements, and as long as the clause “one must be born of a parent” in Ex. #2 is an acceptable translation, the birthers are out of luck. I only saw a potential problem with tying the singular subject “one” to the plural “parents,” since that would seem to imply that to “belong to a homeland” an individual would have to have two citizen parents.
The birfoons who try to use Vattel to make their case probably know less French than I do. And about all I remember from my one year studying it at University is that my instructor was very attractive. 🙂
Thank you again, Lupin, for taking the time to translate and explain Vattel to people who are not worthy of your kindness.