Is Dr.C prepping the Obots for a new argument that Obama was born overseas to citizen parents because Barak Sr. isn’t legally or biologically his father ... and thus he is a natural-born citizen??
Apuzzo writes:
“Third, most of the lawyers who concluded that McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” said he was so because under the Constitution there are only “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens, and since McClellan was not a naturalized citizen, he must necessarily be a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Dr. Conspiracy makes no mention of the fact that none of those lawyers even cited and quote from let alone addressed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which clearly stated just five years earlier that, with citizenship not descending from parents but only given by statute to the children born out of the United States to citizen parents, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are naturalized “at birth.””
Let me take a devil’s advocate position for a moment. What would you answer to the question of “but what is the difference between ‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized at birth’?” On the face of it, the two phrases sound synonymous. One is made natural the moment one is born.
During the period when the Constitution was drafted it was common knowledge the children followed the condition of the father.
This is all explained in the law of nations. The courts have told us the law of nations should prevail.
Do we allow the perpetual inhabitant to prevail or the law of nations?
I have consistently said for the past three years that the causes of the birther movement are complex. I have rejected the view that it is simply racist, talking issue with some of the commenters on my site. Some of it is racist, some is anti-Muslim/pro-Israel, some of it is Christian fundamentalist, some of it is xenophobic, some of it is purely political and some of it simply stems from some fairly-well-known defects in human thinking that apply to conspiracy thinking in general.
Mr. Apuzzo likes to find “one thing” to focus on and generalize from it, while ignoring the context and all the other things that disprove his characterization. There are over 1,700 at Obama Conspiracy Theories, and if you read everything I’ve written on race, you will find that Mr. Apuzzo’s remark is a misrepresentation of my position.
One article that might help understand my thinking on the subject is:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/is-obama-eligibility-denialism-a-conspiracy-theory/
And for the record, I have yet to see Mr. Apuzzo respond to the charges that he is a member of the Ku Klux Klan following his appearance on the Momma E radio show just 4 days after the Klan’s national membership director! (OK, I’m just kidding, but you see how these smears work?)