Posted on 01/26/2011 5:57:29 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
 |
| Tim Adams |
More reactionary diatribes at Reaganite Republican
PS: I have access to a HUGE University library system online. Don’t make me go academic on your butt, you don’t even want to see that many citations. They ARE there. Go to a neighborhood library with access to teh internet and an online library system. That way you don’t have to pay for the subscription fees.
This is what I have access to, anad this is just for the articles database (these are all links which I am not including here):
Articles/Databases (Deep Web)
FIND A JOURNAL (Journal Title Search)
SEARCH MULTIPLE DATABASES (Federated Search)
About Journal Holdings
General—Suites Select Topic Databases Mixed—Articles & Books
Ebsco Suite
Academic Search
Business Elite
Education Complete
GreenFile—environment
Security/Counter Terrorism
SportDiscus
Proquest Suite
ABI-Inform—business
Criminal Justice
Military Collection
Religion
Research Library
American History in Video
ABC-Clio World at War
Disaster Medicine & Public Health Preparedness
Faulkner Advisory Computers & Communications
Elsevier Health & Life Science (ScienceDirect)
JSTOR—Archives, II & III
Granger’s Poetry
International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters
Jane’s Military Magazines
LexisNexis (News,business,legal...)
Loislaw (See: Librarian)
Poiesis (Philosophy)
PsycARTICLES
PsycCRITIQUE
PsycINFO
Sage Criminology
Security Management Practices Databases
Sport Business Research Network (SBRnet)
Sport Litigation Alert
Strategic Defense/Security Studies
World Bank Database
CIAO (International Affairs)
Footnote.com (History, newspapers)
Praeger Security International
Interlibrary Loan Policy (ILL) for other titles
• Article Request
Then there is the refrence section...
I don’t just use google or bing to do searches with. I can search the world darned near.
Time for troll zot. Also please note, James777, and LorenC. Though LorenC has been more laid back this go-round,
Speaking of George Collins, his interpretation of 'natural born citizen' was wrong. No less a body than the U.S. Supreme Court said it was wrong.
That's because George Collins was one of the lead attorneys in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Specifically, he was the losing attorney. He argued his definition of 'natural born citizen,' the one you want to argue is correct, and the Supreme Court disagreed.
This is among the reasons why there was no discussion of any supposed 'two-citizen-parent' requirement before the election, and why over two years later, Birthers still can't find any legitimate legal scholars to back them up. Because it's not valid law. Because over a century ago, George Collins tried to make that argument before the Supreme Court, and he lost.
You asked for something published, having stated there was no mention of it anywhere before Nov 2008. You are BUSTED.
ZOT
Okay. Let me narrow that down for you. Something published before Nov. 2008 and after the Kim Wong Ark decision. That should give you about 100 years to work with. Good luck!
Please don't expect me to be surprised that having failed to produce any actual examples of 'two-citizen-parent' discussions pre-November 2008, that you're falling back on supposed memories of telephone conversations from two and a half years ago. I've been through this before: Birther says I'm wrong, I ask for evidence, Birther produces something that doesn't show I'm wrong, I ask again, Birther produces something else irrelevant, I ask again, Birther falls back on 'secret' evidence that he can't or won't produce.
Look, I don't have anything to gain from pinpointing Donofrio's suit as what kicked off interest in the 'two-citizen-parent' stuff. That's just the conclusion my research points to. If it's earlier, then show me. I'm not emotionally invested either way. You seem to be taking this a lot more personally than I am.
Still, since you claim to have been personally talking up the 'two-citizen-parent' thing in summer 2008, I perused some of your posts from between August and November. You had a lot of posts about Obama's natural born citizenship. You expressed a lot of concern about where he was born, and even more concern over whether he was adopted.
And yet, in none of those posts did you ever suggest that he was never a natural born citizen to begin with because of his father's citizenship. To wit:
Danae: No matter how you look at it, Obama is NOT able to run for President. He is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. Either because he was Born in Kenya to a mother that by law could not bestow citizenship upon him because of her age, or because he because a citizen of Indonesia when he was adopted and or acknowledged by his Step-father in order to go to school there. "See? His father's citizenship being an automatic disqualifier doesn't seem to have been on your mind at all. And that's from mid-October 2008.
No, I made it quite explicit that that was NOT what I was claiming.
The web, and even FreeRepublic, is a large sprawling place, and I'm not adamantly concluding that no single person EVER posited this argument before November 2008. (I mean, I could probably find one person who claimed online that Obama was ineligible because he's black, or because he's an alien reptoid. Lone individuals can have wrong ideas that don't take off.)George Collins is a prime example of someone whose arguments were rebutted, as the Supreme Court itself rebutted them. In matters of law, it doesn't get more final than that.I'm claiming that if it was made, that it wasn't taken seriously even by the birther community. It was ignored as wrongheaded, or actively rebutted as incorrect.
Moreover, since you have repeatedly expressed interest in my being banned, I must ask: why?
I was originally pinged into this thread by two different posters, who were discussing a previous theory of mine. I joined in, responded to questions posed to me, and attempted to clarify exactly what my theory was. I've sourced and linked my information where applicable, both in defense of my claims and to rebut others'. I have endeavored to be generally neutral in my approach to the evidence presented. And I don't believe I've been rude or unduly confrontational to anyone in the thread.
So what do you say I've done that would merit my banning?
Hey curiosity! Did you hear that Rush Limbaugh said they got an imposter into the EQUIVALENT of the White House in AFGANISTATN??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2632107/posts?page=22#22
I don’t know what definition George Collins argued for, but the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark quoted and affirmed Justice Waite’s definition from Minor v. Happersett. Of this, there’s no doubt.
I am not wasting any more time on any of you. Hell is breaking loose in the middle east, I have a heavy course load at the moment, 5 midterm essays to write, a pinewood Derby to do, along with regular life.
Discussing anything with you three is pointless. 1) because everything offered is never enough, 2) you have no point what so ever that is relevant to anything, 3) you are wrong and have been proven wrong multiple times with reems of information, 4) ya buggahs stay broke in da head. You no like learn, you no like shaddap.
The fact I will no longer respond to your bs is a statement regarding the invalidity of your claims, they aren’t worthy of response and I have far better things to do.
*tink* consider yourselves flicked back to the sandbox.
I should have said that Obama would have been referred to as a step-child, or else he wouldn’t have been mentioned at all. The fact that he was mentioned, shows he was Soetoro’s, aka adopted, thereby Barry had citizenship for Indonesia.
American Citizen, Native Born Citizen, Natural Born Citizen, Why these Terms are Important?
His Master’s Voice | 8/4/09 | HMV
Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:25:56 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
What I find so amazing about the “birther bashers” (or “afterbirthers” as I call them) is that they have so little appreciation for the complexity of Obama’s citizenship dilemma. They also do not appreciate the trap doors that exist at various points in his life regarding adoption and immigration between countries where he resided. Most of all, though, they don’t understand the basic terms that they banter about.
In short, Obama’s life path is fraught with potentially disqualifying conditions for the office he holds. As a constitutional law instructor, perhaps no one understands these conditions like he does, and that explains his intransigence in releasing anything that might expose him to constitutional challenge.
Let me just take a stab at a few terms that the ‘afterbirthers” throw around like they are interchangeable.
American citizen - this only means that at least one of the birth parents was an American and that the indivicual was naturalized, if not born in the US. These alo include immigrants who have been naturalized citizens. You can be considered an American citizen if you have dual citizenship with another country. To scream that Obama is an American citizen, as many afterbirthers do, proves NOTHING avout his right to be president. Even Syrian-born Tony Rezko is an American citizen.
Native Born Citizen - this means that an individual, in addition to having at least one parent who is an American citizen and you were born on US soil (including territories and American bases). Although this term is thrown around by afterbirthers, this still does not meet the definition of a Natural Born Citizen.
Natural Born Citizen - this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized. I believe that Bobby Jindal’s parents were not native born, but he would be qualified for president because both parents were American citizens through the naturalization process.
The afterbirthers scream that there were seven presidents born that had at least one foreign parent like Obama. That is true, but in every case, the foreign parent was naturalized, with the exception of Chester Arthur. His father was Irish and became a Canadian citizen, never a naturalized US citizen. He obviously realized he was not qualified for office because he actually burned some of his personal records to keep anyone from finding out. A familiar pattern of behavior?
The fact is, we don’t need to go to Kenya to disprove Obama’s eligibility. It is hidden in plain sight. He is not a Natural Born Citizen due to to his Kenyan father. The Supreme Court simply has to take on this issue to declare that the meaning of the term has never changed. Constitutional scholars have been eerily silent on this issue, but in the research I’ve done, I can find no other interpretation.
As mentioned earlier, there is a plethora of reasons why Obama might otherwise be unqualified should the Supreme Court not decide against his natural born status, but that is the most logical starting point.
Thoughts, additions, corrections welcome.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: allahpundit; certifigate; charlesjohnson; chat; hillary; hotair; lgf; pumas; vanity; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-52 next last
1 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:25:56 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
We only recognize 2 levels of citizenship in this country, not three. There are naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.
2 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:28:19 PM by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Melas
True. Native born is a canard that the afterbirthers use.
3 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:31:09 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
Well, I refuse to be intimidated for trying to uphold the Constitution. All I want to see is proof that Barry is a natural born citizen as per the Constitution. People can call me all the names they want but I’m not budging.
4 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:31:34 PM by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
Excellent post....
From now on...everytime a faux-con after-birther waxes poetic about the constitution, liberty, law, morals, etc....remember that they really do not believe in those things if they are calling birthers “kooks”
Obama’s eligibility to be President is probably the most important constitutional issue of our time....and we have fraud-cons siding up with DailyKos and HuffPo
5 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:32:04 PM by UCFRoadWarrior (Know the difference between “conservative” and “republican”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Melas
It would have been easier to disqualify him before the election than since. McCain’s camp didn’t raise this issue.
If you go back one year ago to the day, MANY OF US HERE WERE SCREAMING ABOUT THIS THIS ALMOST DAILY!...
Uncovering this now will have the result only of weakening his presidency not ending it.
That’s why the issue is bigger now and one of his lack transparency and secrecy.
We know nothing about this man. NADA. Nothing about the courses he took in college, his grades. His law school work or his work in the Illinois legislature.
His biographies are uniquely written and carry the air of a ghost writer, and that being William Ayers.
His response or I should say his calculated response to the Crawley/Gates incident botheres a lot of people as we fear that this guy is anything but a unifier because of his inbred and imbued racism.
I’m not an Obama hater or Kook, Mr. O’Reilly. I find your portrayal of people in this forum with these concerns insulting.
I also find that you are poorly informed on this entire issue. Your body language tells everyone that you are lying when you say you have seen the long form of the BC and that you can vouchsafe for Obama’s citizenship.
The BC is a side show.
6 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35:55 PM by nikos1121 (praying for -13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid; Melas
What is the source of your definitions? If you just made them up yourself (and I haven’t seen anything similar anywhere else), then you’re just begging the question. You’ve created a definition that makes you right . . . but anyone else is logically able to create their own definition that makes them right. No one convinces the other.
I think Melas has the correct understanding. There are natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens. One obtains their citizenship by right of birth, either because their parents are citizens or because they were born ‘in the US’ (defined in various ways, as for McCain). The other obtains their citizenship through a naturalization process when the ‘natural-born’ conditions do not apply.
Since it is acknowledged that Obama’s parents were not both US citizens, then his only claim to citizenship is that he was born in the United States. It’s either true or not.
In fact, I think he was born in Hawaii. I just think that if there is even the slightest question about it, he should be required to demonstrate it unambiguously. Right now, there are any number of ways that his citizenship could have been faked.
The real issue is whether the burden of proof is on him to show that he is qualified for the office, or whether the burden of proof is on someone else to show that he is not. Since he is in power, there is no incentive for him to take on that burden of proof, particularly since he probably can’t prove it unambiguously due to the standards of record-keeping in Hawaii at the time.
7 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:44:43 PM by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
Question: My husband has been a US citizen since birth, but I became a citizen in 2000, that is 5 years after my youngest one was born. Both my children were born in the US, one parent was a US citizen but the other became a citizen after they were born. Are they natural born citizens or not? It seems to me that they are more than native born citizens, since at this time both their parents are US citizens, but they may not measure up to natural born citizens. Am I right? If so, what would you call this 4th class of citizens?
8 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:44:56 PM by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
What about the “Anchor” babies; those born of a foreign national mother on American soil?
9 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:52:08 PM by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: OldNavyVet
American citizens, not natural born.
10 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:55:14 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Former Fetus
Technically no, you and husband were NOT both citizens at time of birth.
11 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:57:45 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Phlyer
Definitions are gleaned from a voluminous amount of reading on the subject, but I am certainly not the final authority.
Native born citizen is not a legally defined citizenship as far as I can tell, but it is throwhn around by the afterbirthers like it is!
“Since it is acknowledged that Obama’s parents were not both US citizens, then his only claim to citizenship is that he was born in the United States. It’s either true or not.”
He’d still be a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen (therefore unqualified). Had Stanley Ann not declared who the father was, it could not be proven that he was not a natural born citizen (born to two American parents) assuming they could not find a foreign father through DNA.
The whole point of the article is that he is not, and has never been a Natural Born Citizen of the united States, per the constitution.
12 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:07:06 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Melas
There are naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.
Sure ... but there are several flavors of “naturalized”. There is naturalized-by-statute, naturalized-by-treaty, naturalized-by-resolution, and ... after the 14th Amendment was ratified ... naturalized-by-birth. Perhaps there are others as well! Congress was given the ability to define “uniform” laws of naturalization by Article I. Where power is granted, power is abused. Is it any wonder a multitude of naturalization methods were introduced?
13 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:16:04 PM by so_real ( “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Former Fetus
It seems to me that they are more than native born citizens, since at this time both their parents are US citizens, but they may not measure up to natural born citizens. Am I right?
You’re correct. Your children are not natural born citizens, but they are native born ones.
14 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:20:03 PM by MamaTexan (If you think calling me a ‘birther’ will make me stop defending the Constitution....think again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: OldNavyVet
“What about the ‘Anchor’ babies; those born of a foreign national mother on American soil?”
What about them?
15 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:24:18 PM by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: so_real
“after the 14th Amendment was ratified ... naturalized-by-birth”
No. The 14th amendment says all persons born OR naturalized in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. The “or” means born citizens and naturalized citizens aren’t one and the same. To be born a citizen is not to be “made natural,” but rather to be natural.
16 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:26:27 PM by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: UCFRoadWarrior
“Obama’s eligibility to be President is probably the most important constitutional issue of our time....”
I fully agree with that statement, yet notice how mute the Congress and SCOTUS are about this matter. It appears that they KNOW that there is something rotten in this whole affair but are unwilling to take action.
If this silent group considers itself to be citizens of this country they would have demanded that the problem be resolved for the sake of the country’s SECURITY and wellbeing. Obama could be vulnerable to blackmail from individuals if they have proof of his legal ineligibility for the presidency.
And the solution of this crisis is idiotically simple — let Obama produce a valid BC. What seems to be apparent is that the people of this nation should not expect help from its government in solving this national dilemma.
17 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:27:11 PM by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Former Fetus
“It seems to me that they are more than native born citizens, since at this time both their parents are US citizens, but they may not measure up to natural born citizens. Am I right?
No. The only way one can something more than a regular citizen is to be a natural born citizen, and, as implied by the title, whether you are natural born depends upon the conditions of your birth. It wouldn’t matter if your mother was naturalized sometime during your life. That would not affect how you were born.
18 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:30:25 PM by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Former Fetus
That should be: “The only way one be can something more...”
19 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:31:48 PM by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
“Native born is a canard that the afterbirthers use.”
Seems to me it is the birthers who love the term “native born,” because it gives them an alternative to saying people born on American soil without citizen parents are naturalized, which with good reason sounds strange to most ears.
20 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:34:36 PM by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
Your definitions are all wrong.
21 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:36:02 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
“Native born citizen is not a legally defined citizenship as far as I can tell”
Nor is natural born citizen, technically. But that doesn’t stop Birthers, as much as anti-Birthers, to define it on their own.
22 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:37:24 PM by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Melas
“We only recognize 2 levels of citizenship in this country, not three. There are naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.”
They aren’t even different “levels”. You are a citizen or you aren’t. The difference is how citizenship is obtained.
If you obtained it by right of birth, because you were born in the US or were born to a citizen, then you were a “natural born” citizen.
If you obtained citizenship later in life through the immigration laws then you were “naturalized”.
A naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.
23 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:39:58 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: mlo
Please englighten me!
24 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:42:56 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid; OldNavyVet
What about the “Anchor” babies; those born of a foreign national mother on American soil?
American citizens, not natural born.
By your own definition, HMV, Anchor Babies are not even citizens because neither parent is a citizen. But it is a fact that anchor babies are indeed citizens, so your definitions are flawed.
Not to mention that the Constitution only lists 2 classes of citizen, natural born and naturalized. So unless you can provide some other legal source for three classifications, I’ll take the Constitution over your opinion any day.
25 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:46:28 PM by Tatze (I reject your reality and substitute my own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
He’d still be a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen . .
Again, what do you base that on?
If he was born on US sovereign territory, then what is his citizenship if not United States? Are you saying that he is a stateless person because one parent was a foreigner? I think you’d have trouble with the 14th Amendment on that one.
I will continue to maintain that there are only ‘native-born / natural-born’ or ‘naturalized’ citizens.
You can continue to make your own definitions that “prove” your point by drawing distinctions between people born in the United States and “natural born” citizens, but I don’t see it. There are legitimate questions about whether he was truly born in Hawaii, but you seem to be granting that and still saying that he is not natural born, which doesn’t make sense to me. It it makes you happy, then God bless, and have a nice day.
26 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:48:37 PM by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
“Please englighten me!”
“American citizen - this only means that at least one of the birth parents was an American and that the indivicual was naturalized, if not born in the US. These alo include immigrants who have been naturalized citizens. You can be considered an American citizen if you have dual citizenship with another country... “
It isn’t if one parent was a citizen AND you were naturalized. It’s one or the other, or you were born here. In any case, however it happened, you are a citizen or you aren’t.
“Native Born Citizen - this means that an individual, in addition to having at least one parent who is an American citizen and you were born on US soil (including territories and American bases).”
Again, not both. If you were born here you are a citizen, regardless of whether your parents were. That’s the law.
“Natural Born Citizen - this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized...”
The citizenship of the parents does not matter. What matters is whether you are a citizen by birth. That can happen because one of your parents is a citizen, or because you are born here. If you were a citizen at birth then you are a “natural born citizen”.
27 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:49:32 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Phlyer
Law of nations says both parents must be citizens, period.
Law of nations is the guiding light for this subject.
It is what the framers used to draw up the consitution!
28 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:54:17 PM by devistate one four (Back by popular demand: America love or leave it (GTFOOMC) TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: 353FMG
“Obama’s eligibility to be President is probably the most important constitutional issue of our time....”
I fully agree with that statement, yet notice how mute the Congress and SCOTUS are about this matter. It appears that they KNOW that there is something rotten in this whole affair but are unwilling to take action.”
Phillip Berg’s original lawsuit filed on Aug 22, 2008 was clear in stating that if the SC and the country in general didn’t solve this problem before Nov elections, it could lead to a constitutional crisis.
Now the crisis gets worse every day.
I surely wish that Cheif Justice John Roberts had the stones to get into this more deply, as he promised in Idaho.
29 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:56:21 PM by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Phlyer
Hawaii was made a state in 1959. NObama was born in 1961. Hawaii was a state when NObama was born- but I certainly do NOT believe NObama was born on USA soil. I think he was born in Kenya.
30 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:58:04 PM by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Tublecane; Hillary’sMoralVoid
“Native born citizen is not a legally defined citizenship as far as I can tell”
Nor is natural born citizen, technically. But that doesn’t stop Birthers, as much as anti-Birthers, to define it on their own.
And that is big issue. The term “natural born citizen” has not been specifically defined by law, which allows a tiny glimmer of hope for the birthers. However, the wording of the 14th Amendments makes it clear, to me at least. Citizens are so either by birth or naturalization. There are only two classifications. If you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen.
31 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:01:16 PM by Tatze (I reject your reality and substitute my own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: devistate one four
Here is an interesting piece from http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
” Despite the mainstream news media’s silence regarding this matter, an increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might not be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President.
According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen”. However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Barack Obama publicly admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to Minor v. Happersett, there is unresolved doubt as to whether the child of a non-citizen parent is a natural born citizen. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of some tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has actually said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed here.
This Primer introduces and explains the Obama Eligibility Controversy, in question-and-answer format, for a non-technical general audience. We’ve double-checked the facts presented here, and we’ve cited the sources of each fact.”
32 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:19:58 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
Thank you!
33 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:28:47 PM by devistate one four (Back by popular demand: America love or leave it (GTFOOMC) TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
“Technically no, you and husband were NOT both citizens at time of birth.”
Ath the time of WHOSE birth?? I read that the husband was born in the U.S. SHE was not.
34 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:31:46 PM by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Tublecane
The “or” means born citizens and naturalized citizens aren’t one and the same.
Certainly. And in the historical context, prior to the 14th Amendment, they most definitely were not the same. Simply being “born” in the U.S. was no guarantee whatsoever at all that a child of a foreign national would even be considered a citizen. They most decidedly would not in any remote circumstance have been considered “natural born citizens”. Naturalized citizens had the distinct advantage. Senator Jacob M. Howard said as much when he introduced the 14th Amendment to the Senate in 1866 with a speech saying :
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
According to Jacob’s understanding of the text at the time it was conceived, agreed upon, and presented, it is quite possible to be a person born in the United States and yet still be a foreigner or alien and therefore, not a citizen at all. It is quite a stretch to believe the 14th proffered the “natural born” status to these non-citizens in the minds of its authors and contemporaries. Not to be offensive, but in the historical context that would have been ludicrous. I’m not sure it would even be Constitutionally possible as Congress was only granted the authority in Article I to define uniform laws of naturalization. I’m reasonably certain Congress was not extended the authority anywhere to redefine the understood notion of “natural born”.
35 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:37:34 PM by so_real ( “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: devistate one four
“It is what the framers used to draw up the consitution!”
No, it is a book that they read. Like many other books. That doesn’t make every word in all those books the law.
36 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:42:22 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Melas
You forgot your favorite category - illegal aliens.
37 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:42:51 PM by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
What I find so amazing about the “birther bashers” (or “afterbirthers” as I call them) is that they have so little appreciation for the complexity of Obama’s citizenship dilemma.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hillary,
We are dealing with Marxists here. Of course they understand the “complexity”! They are **lying**! They are deliberately and maliciously **lying**!
All Marxists lie!
Their goal is to confuse the American public. But...I suspect that American public is smarter than the Marxists believe. The American public is thinking, “ Why spend nearly a million dollars worth of attorney time? An honest president would be honored to provide and long form birth certificate and any other relevant documentation.”
38 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:44:10 PM by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Parley Baer
I feel the same way that you do.
Obama refuses to show any of his records...why? I guess some people will accept anything without question. That is NOT what our founders wanted... they are weaklings who are like sheep.
39 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:51:40 PM by LuKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Former Fetus
“Both my children were born in the US, one parent was a US citizen but the other became a citizen after they were born. Are they natural born citizens or not?”
Since your children were born in the US they are citizens by birth, “natural born citizens”, yes.
“It seems to me that they are more than native born citizens, since at this time both their parents are US citizens, but they may not measure up to natural born citizens. Am I right? If so, what would you call this 4th class of citizens?”
There is no “more” than native born citizens. A “native born” and “natural born” citizen are the same thing. There is no 3rd class, let alone a 4th.
40 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:09:10 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
“In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.”
This is a mischaracterization. This decision did not establish that doubt existed. In one section it mentions, in passing, the some people thought this way, but it wasn’t a question the court had to decide. It says nothing towards giving credence to those unspecified people who thought that way.
41 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:17:47 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)
“Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
“The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the ‘ the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
42 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:20:44 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
“III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
This ruling, which is a ruling from the United States Supreme Court, says that the common law in England was that every child born in England of ALIEN parents was a “natural-born subject”.
It explains that since the Constitution did not redefine the term, and that the US did inherit english common law in large part, that US common law holds the same. Further, that the definition “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
It therefore defines “natural born citizen” as including anyone born in the country, even if they had alien parents.
43 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:25:30 PM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: devistate one four
Law of nations says both parents must be citizens, period.
Law of nations is the guiding light for this subject.
Nope. The US Constitution is the guiding light.
[14th Amendment}
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
It’s one of the things that makes the United States unique among all the nations of history. We are the only one - that people actually want to come to - that allows anyone who is born here to be a citizen. There are 5th generation Turks living in Germany who are not German citizens.
It is what the framers used to draw up the consitution!
Maybe. But that got changed with the 14th Amendment. It was ratified to keep states from invoking ‘grandfather’ clauses where someone couldn’t vote unless his grandfather had been able to vote. That was being used as a way to keep freed slaves from voting.
So unless you’re trying to say that foreign law should be considered authoritative over the US Constitution, for Americans, then I think you’ve got the wrong argument. And I certainly would not agree to the supremacy of foreign law.
Even if you want to advocate a repeal of the 14th Amendment, it couldn’t be retroactively applied to keep Obama from being a citizen. That’s in the US Constitution, too. (Article 1, Section 9: No ex post facto laws)
44 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:42:28 PM by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: ridesthemiles
I think he was born in Kenya.
Therein lies the rub. There is plenty of incentive for an unwed mother to want to get her child declared to be a US citizen. If there were any way for her to fake a birth certificate, using any of the known ways to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate that don’t require an attending physician to sign off as having actually witnessed the birth of a child, then motive and opportunity are present.
So I won’t argue with your belief. The uncertainty is reasonable, and the reason I think he should be required to prove his citizenship.
45 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:47:34 PM by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Former Fetus
If your children were born in the United States, then they have their citizenship from the moment of birth and are natural born citizens.
The US citizenship is their birthright, notwithstanding any foreign citizenship they may have acquired from you under the laws of your former country.
46 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:23:23 PM by GreenLanternCorps (”Barack Obama” is Swahili for “Jimmy Carter”.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: ridesthemiles
I surely wish that Cheif Justice John Roberts had the stones to get into this more deply, as he promised in Idaho.
Has anything more been said about this?
47 posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:10:10 PM by Lauren BaRecall (I am only ONE of many real Jim Thompsons, yet I am ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: mlo
The key word here is “jurisdiction”. For example, Kenya, was part of the British Commonwealth and under English law. Aliens were citizens of theat country who were not British citizens by birth, but were conferred citizenship by virtue of being under British jurisdiction.
We’re not talking illegal aliens here, we’re talking masses of people who were not born as British Citizens but came under British jurisdiction, and were therby conferred citizenship.
BHO senior is a good example, and he conferred British Citizenship to BHO Jr. But BHO Jr. would not be a natural born citizen of Kenya, just as he isn’t of the United States, because BHO Sr’s citizenship was not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Had BHO naturalized, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I’ve read many opinions on this, and there are certain excerpts that can certainly cause confusion, but when you read the opinion in totality, we revert to English common law when it comes to the deginition of “Natural Born Citizen”, and it is clear-cut.
48 posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:41:56 AM by Hillary’sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
“The key word here is “jurisdiction”...”
Read this sentence from Wong:
“...every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
The jurisdiction exception is laid out right there. If you are the child of an ambassador or of an invading soldier, then you aren’t under the jurisdiction. Everyone else in the territory is.
It does not mean having some loyalty or attachment to another country. Even people loyal to another country are under the jurisdiction of the laws of the country they are in. Only diplomats and invading soldiers are not.
49 posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:00:15 AM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Hillary’sMoralVoid
“...we revert to English common law when it comes to the deginition of “Natural Born Citizen”, and it is clear-cut.”
Yes it is clear-cut, but it isn’t what you are saying it is. Go back and read post #43 again, a decision from the US Supreme Court explaining exactly what the common law was.
50 posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:09:52 AM by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I don’t see how you can possibly claim it was not discussed before the election. Everytime I look I find more examples.
For many of us, the desire to see the birth documentation verified, was not to see where he was born, but to document who the father was.
No matter. I no longer care what you claim, or post.
Then please, share them. I am perfectly open to the possibility that Birthers were discussing Obama's ineligibility due to his lack of two citizen parents if you show me such discussions. I genuinely would like to know when such discussions began, but right now my research points to mid-November 2008. I simply drew my conclusion from the evidence I've found.
Here, however, you seem to have posted 7000 words of posts from August 2009. Nine months after the election. So I'm somewhat unclear what you think this shows.
Fine point, but Jindal's parents were not citizens at the time of his birth; IIRC they had either green cards and/or were in the process of becoming naturalized but at the time of his birth were not yet US citizens. So Jindal is not a natural born citizen.
and what relevance does it have when two citizen parents were discussed and when?None. It is not a legal precedent.
OOPs,I missed the year on that one.
But you must not have looked very hard if you didn’t find it discussed before 11/08.
Here’s some from the Big Thread:
To: Mike Darancette
The issue is not citizenship, the issue is whether he is a natural-born citizen. From the number of such comments here, it seems that there are a lot of people don’t know that there is a difference between citizen and natural-born citizen. Having only one parent a citizen makes it possible that “natural-born” does not apply.
997 posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 6:44:39 PM by safisoft
To: Mike Darancette
If he was born in Hawaii he has the same right to be president as any anchor baby born in Calixco.
Ah. But that is the point. The “anchor baby” has no right to become President if at the time of his birth his parents were not U.S. citizens. The “anchor baby” may be a citizen, but does not qualify as “natural-born.”
The reason that the issue is important regarding Nobama is because his father was not a citizen, and his mother may/or may not qualify to be the sole parent of a “natural born” citizen.
1,226 posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:25:27 AM by safisoft
To: antiRepublicrat; Lady Heron
wasn’t there talk about McCain not being eligible for this very reason?
The Canal issue is irrelevant, as McCain was born of two US citizens and thus was born a citizen of the US. Somewhere there is probably a consular report of birth abroad for him, which is the equivalent of an American birth certificate for legal purposes. The problem with Obama is that we’re not sure he was actually born in Hawaii. If he wasn’t, and mommy was in Kenya at the time, then she as the lone US citizen wasn’t enough to get him automatic citizenship upon birth due to her specific circumstances.
That is correct as to Obama but not exactly correct as to McCain.
A reference to an article published Saturday night which includes McCain’s birth document is posted on this thread. The Birth Document confirms that he was born in a hospital off the US Base and not subject even to the fiction that he was born in the territorial United States.
Thus his two citizen parents make him a citizen; but in my opinion, there is a good Constitutional argument that he does not meet the Natural Born Constitutional test under Article II, Sec. 1, par. 4.
2,111 posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 10:50:21 AM by David (...)
To: null and void
Merely being a citizen is not a sufficient qualification to hold the office of the President.
Of course not, but Obama and McCain are old both enough and have been residents long enough. McCain is clearly natural-born, Obama not so sure.
2,124 posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 12:07:52 PM by antiRepublicrat
To: null and void; David; Raycpa
It’s an unsettled area of Constitutional understanding. But only if one unties words and phrasing from their intended purpose! Which is what the courts have been fond of doing, even the originalists.
What was the purpose? I think as Washington said in related matters — “To avoid foreign entanglements.”
The “natural born” clause is there ONLY because Washington wanted it there. He was a great man.
It is something exactly like the Obama’s Dad situation he wanted to avoid. Why? He did not want to have a US President who was a Prince or a son of similar potent family.
Obama, himself, is the marker of the kind of entanglement Washington (and John Jay) wanted to avoid. How is that? When Obama went back to Kenya and campaigned for his cousin!
2,173 posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 4:42:50 PM by bvw
To: David
Have you noticed that many here can’t agree on what natural-born means? Is it born here? Is it born here to American parents? Is it born anywhere to American parents? In any case, we know what they meant because of their first immigration law passed in 1790.
2,191 posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 6:00:13 PM by antiRepublicrat
To: WOSG
A citizen? Yes, whether he was born in Africa or Akron.
Natural-born? Maybe, the lawyers are arguing the finer points of that right now. I’m inclined towards the side that says natural-born means born on US soil.
Part of what I’m saying isn’t the law, it’s what Stanley Ann thought was the law. That is what drove her actions.
It is very reasonable to believe that she thought out of country illegitimate birth (there’s a phrase loaded with bias!) with a foreign national father would deny her baby citizenship, or at least complicate getting it asserted.
It is very reasonable to expect a new mommy - even a commie mommy - to want the best for her son, and to take steps to insure it.
You keep saying he was born in Honolulu, as if that were a given.
It’s not a given. It might well be true, but smart people of good will are debating that, each side has good evidence supporting their views.
Game over. Barack’s eligible to be President, with 100% certainty, no matter WHERE he is born.
It’s halftime. A bit early to declare victory.
We agree that he is a citizen, regardless of the location of his birth.
Even given the unquestionable facts of his meeting the age and residence requirements, citizenship, by itself, is not sufficient to hold office.
He has to be a “natural born” citizen. What exactly that phrase means has been the subject of a rather lively debate. I suspect that will be clarified a bit more during this election cycle.
Regardless of the outcome of that particular debate, politically this is a dead issue. If intelligent articulate conservatives can’t present the issue clearly to each other what hope does it have for being clear in the minds of the average government school mal-educated voter?
2,350 posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:26:20 AM by null and void (every Muslim, the minute he can differentiate, carries hate of Americans, Jews & Christians - OBL)
To: WOSG
Hmmm. You are correct. I misread paragraph (g).
I agree that regardless of the location of his birth, he is a US citizen by virtue of the 1952 law and being born to an American parent.
A few things are still in play.
Is this sufficient to meet the “natural born” requirement? Not according to what I had always been taught. (But so what? I was also taught the Moon was up there “to protect us from meteors”)!
More to the point, there is still a lively debate in legal circles as to what constitutes “natural born” I don’t expect they will be done splitting finer and finer hairs until some time after the sun burns out.
The two other things still in play are what actually happened? Given eye witness accounts of his birth in Kenya, what if he really was born there? Why would Stanley Ann bother to rush back to Hawai’i to claim he was born there?
I think that it is simply because she feared he wouldn’t be granted US citizenship, since he was born off shore, and Barak Sr. had one too many wives for US laws. Her simplest solution was to board a plane as soon as they’d let her, and get their little butts back to Hawai’i before his cord fell off and she could plausibly assert he was born there at home.
She acted based on what she knew and feared, even if it wasn’t accurate.
The other alternative is also quite simple. She didn’t go on a honeymoon, she didn’t meet his parents, and Barak really was born in Honolulu.
If that is the case, it would have been a trivial exercise to get an unquestionably authentic birth certificate. Soooooo...
WHY DID HIS CAMPAIGN POST A CLUMSY COPY???
2,431 posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:01:53 PM by null and void (every Muslim, the minute he can differentiate, carries hate of Americans, Jews & Christians - OBL)
________________________________________
To: WOSG
By that Blackstone then, Obama would not be a natural born (1) because his dad was not citizen and (arguably) (2) because his mom’s later life took her into a gray-area regarding her loyalties — into citizenship abroad. That last may sound post-facto, but it gets to the heart of WHY the natural born requirement is in there. To insure that there is a foundation of love of country. His dad did not have it or he would have stayed and become a citizen, and his mom was in the process of losing it when she was raising him.
2,532 posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:39:40 PM by bvw
But two posters here do suggest a two-citizen-parent requirement. Namely, safisoft in the first two posts, and bvw in the last one.
Now bvw's is interesting because less than two weeks earlier, on June 26, 2008, he'd specifically defined 'natural born citizen' in a post, and made no hint whatsoever about such a parental-citizenship requirement:
"The issue for me is not Obama's birth. His mother was born and has remained a US citizen, as I understand that makes Obama a natural born citizen, no matter where she might have birthed him."I found one post inbetween those dates that I think was likely misinterpreted to prompt this change. I'll see if I can find it again.
In any case, what both safisoft's and bvw's posts have in common is that nobody else backed them up on these interpretations. The 'two-citizen-parent' claim was either ignored or rebutted. Other posters didn't adopt the view because other posters, at the time, recognized that the argument was wrong.
And like I said before, I was open to the possibility that lone individuals might have tossed out the argument prior to November. You've demonstrated that that was indeed the case, and I thank you for it. If anything, it shows that Donofrio didn't necessarily make the argument up out of thin air, and maybe copied it from someone online.* But at the same time, the universal negative-to-silent response to it also bolsters the main thrust of my hypothesis: that the 'two-citizen-parent' argument simply was not taken seriously before Donofrio employed it.
(*I think I mentioned before that Berg stole most of the claims in his complaint from comments online. And in several instances, Berg's use of those claims is what caused them to gain popularity among Birthers. For instance, you will find very few references to 'Mombasa' as a supposed place of birth prior to Berg's filing date in August 2008. A couple of sites mentioned it, having seen the same source Berg eventually used, but it was Berg that cemented Mombasa in the birther mythos.)
Did you lurk on FR before you ever posted your first reply or did you just jump right in and start making replies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.