The French Phrase, outlined in the 1775 edition of Vattel's Law of Nations,...which translates into English as " "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country,of parents who are citizens", or "Natural born citizens" for short. As most of the founders Spoke, Read, and Wrote French, (they were our allies during the war, you know.) it was not difficult for them to pour through this new blueprint for our nation. So what you're saying is you have no instances of the English phrase "natural born citizen" prior to 1787. You have a French phrase that you admit was translated as "indigenous." And you have the claim that because some Founders spoke French, they must've all personally translated the French phrase as "natural born citizen," even though none of them wrote it down that way.
Actually, there are. Read through this thread and learn how ubiquitous Vattel's "Law of Nations" was during our Founding era. I would have thought you had already read it before you decided to pop off in your ignorance.
I'm sorry, I forget how difficult reading comprehension is for Birthers. I wasn't asking about references to Vattel, or to his several-hundred-page book. I was asking about references to the English phrase "natural born citizen." Just because someone had read Vattel doesn't mean they subscribed to what he wrote about "indigenes" any more than it means they subscribed to what he wrote about monarchies.
I have little doubt that you live in a world of amazement.
It doesn't hold a candle to the Birther/Truther/Moon Hoaxer world of bizarre conspiracies. Have you seen your fellow Birthers claiming that Obama's baby photos have been altered to make him look different from a baby in a photo from a Malcolm X rally that must really be baby Obama and that he's secretly the son of Malcolm X? And that because the woman in the photo has short hair then that means that the photos of Ann Dunham must have been Photoshopped to give her long hair?
Seriously, do you not see how crazy that is?
The Birth certificate was merely the first part of this issue. (And I don't think we've seen a REAL ONE yet.)
Of course not. Moon hoaxers say the same thing about all the photos that prove them wrong too.
For years, I had heard that Obama was from Kenya. It wasn't until he started running for President that I heard differently, and we were all supposed to disregard what we had heard before?
I don't believe for a second that you had heard for years that Obama was from Kenya, and had never heard otherwise. You do know the whole 'Born in Kenya' rumor was started by a guy here at FreeRepublic, right? In 2008? I'd point out all the books and news stories that referred to Obama's Hawaiian birth, but you'd probably just claim they've all been faked too.
"Nothing" can convince "birthers", and that is exactly what you bring. Nothing evidence, nothing arguments, and nothing but noise.
Yep. A short-form birth certificate, a long-form birth certificate, two newspaper birth announcements, two official statements from Hawaii, various references in FOIA documents, multiple news stories. All "nothing." Meanwhile, Birthers have rumors and ambiguous comments and a handful of foreign news stories. And a reputation that makes 9/11 Truthers look like critical-thinkers by comparison.
So what you're saying is you have no instances of the English phrase "natural born citizen" prior to 1787. You have a French phrase that you admit was translated as "indigenous." And you have the claim that because some Founders spoke French, they must've all personally translated the French phrase as "natural born citizen," even though none of them wrote it down that way. If you believe that, then perhaps you can explain this? (From the Letters of James Madison)
"The first evidence to which I will refer on this point is a resolution reported to the Continental Congress in 1777, by a committee of which Thomas Jefferson was Chairman, and Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Reed and Mr. Williams were members. It is in these words:---
Resolved, that it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister, charg'e d'affaires, consul, or vice-consul or to any other civil department in a foreign country; and that a copy of this resolve be sent to Messrs. Adams, Franklin and Jay, Minsters of said states in Europe.
It is known that Jefferson Had a copy of "Droit des gens" in 1775, for he used it to write the Declaration of Independence. It is also known that Franklin had a copy because he kept one of the Three Dumas sent him in 1775. Now we also know that it is likely that Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Reed and Mr. Williams were clearly appraised as to the meaning by Franklin and Jefferson at the very least, if not through their own scholarship of the book.
That the book was well known at this time in history is likewise demonstrable by this page of the "North Carolina Magazine" in 1764:
And this statement by Samuel Adams in 1776:
"By the law of nations , we were discharged from our allegiance the moment the army was posted among us without our consent, or a single farthing taken from us in like manner; either of these being fundamental subversions of the constitutions. It remains entirely with ourselves to have ample justice done to us. We have nothing to do but declare off, and appeal to the droit des gens."
And here is a 1775 letter from Richard Henry Lee to George Washington referring to an interesting passage in "droit des gens."
"Without such a declaration, their friends, and especially their agents here, will be at the mercy of the most unprincipled Administration that ever disgraced humanity. Vattel, the most respected writer on the Laws of Nations, has this apposite observation: "Le Due d' Alva condamnoit à mort tous les prisonniers qu' il pouvoit faire sur les confédérés des Pays-Bas; ceux-ci userent de represailles, et les contraignirent enfin à respecter, à leur égard, le droit des gens, et les loix de la guerre."
Not only did Richard Henry Lee appear to speak and read "droit des gens" in it's original French, he seemed to believe that George Washington could do so as well. :) And this was 12 years PRIOR to the Constitutional convention!
The rest of your infantile nonsense is not worth a response. Once again you have been Pwned!
On second thought, I will address the rest of your points.
It doesn't hold a candle to the Birther/Truther/Moon Hoaxer world of bizarre conspiracies. Have you seen your fellow Birthers claiming that Obama's baby photos have been altered to make him look different from a baby in a photo from a Malcolm X rally that must really be baby Obama and that he's secretly the son of Malcolm X?
Yes, I consider that to be verging on nuts. Too much conclusion from too little/flimsy proof. Some of it contradicted by better evidence.
And that because the woman in the photo has short hair then that means that the photos of Ann Dunham must have been Photoshopped to give her long hair?
Again, I fail to see the point of the claims and regard efforts to paint conclusions from such weak proof as a bridge too far.
Of course not. Moon hoaxers say the same thing about all the photos that prove them wrong too.
Had NASA been hesitant about providing photos right away, and dragged the process out for some weeks, even going so far as to redacting portions of the photographs, I might conclude that something indeed was peculiar. As NASA released everything immediately, it does not even rise to the level of curiosity for me. Besides, very good proof exists in the form of Mirrors placed on the moon's surface which have reflected laser light from dozens of countries for longer than the last 4 decades.
I don't believe for a second that you had heard for years that Obama was from Kenya, and had never heard otherwise.
Oh, I heard otherwise, but only after Obama started campaigning for President. Then everyone insisted he was from Hawaii or Indonesia or something.
You do know the whole 'Born in Kenya' rumor was started by a guy here at FreeRepublic, right? In 2008?
I know very well that it was not. The first I heard of Barack Obama was when he addressed the Democrat National Convention, (Collection of evil losers and successful kooks) and at the time everyone said he was from Kenya.
I'd point out all the books and news stories that referred to Obama's Hawaiian birth, but you'd probably just claim they've all been faked too.
And I already HAVE pointed out to you all of the examples which have not yet been scrubbed off of the net showing he was insinuating he was from Kenya. (or in Stupid Chris Matthews case, Dec 17, 2007 "Indonesia.")
Yep. A short-form birth certificate,
Which had to be dragged out of him kicking and screaming months after it was asked for, and even then with the birth certificate number blacked out so no one could see what it was. Red flags and Alarm bells went off because no reasonable person would have made such a show of resistance.
a long-form birth certificate,
Yes, with eight independent layers, the characteristics of which makes it looks like it was made by an idiot child on a mac with access to Hawaii's birth records. (incidentally, this is completely consistent with my suspicion that it is a replacement birth certificate created after Obama's original was sealed due to his 1964 or 1971 adoption.)
two official statements from Hawaii,
Who are barred by law from admitting to any adoptions which occurred in their state.
various references in FOIA documents,
That he was born. Hearsay evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii. (How would these people know?)
multiple news stories.
Oh, well the people who shoved this guy down our throats? Of course if THEY say something, it must be true, right? Didn't they say he was a moderate?
All "nothing."
Correct, as illustrated above. Let Orly Taitz or some non Obamatron see and copy the original, and if it looks like what he has released, then you will have "SOMETHING", that at least proves he actually WAS born in Hawaii. It doesn't prove who his father was, but it would at least grant him 14th Amendment citizenship under the bogus ruling of Wong Kim Ark.
Meanwhile, Birthers have rumors and ambiguous comments and a handful of foreign news stories. And a reputation that makes 9/11 Truthers look like critical-thinkers by comparison.
We have a LOT of circumstantial evidence. Obama misled people regarding his nationality for years, he acted like someone with something to hide when called to show proof of birth, he continued to obfuscate for years, even going so far as to let an Army doctor go to Prison, and leave many in the armed forces questioning his legitimacy as well as the nation at large. When finally, people begin to notice that he is awful dodgy about the issue, when people started to make fun of him, he finally releases what looks like a childish (or Hawaiian bureaucrat) version of a pasted up document which is supposedly his original birth certificate.
He ACTS, and has always acted like a guilty crook! One would have to be OBTUSE not to realize he acts like a guilty crook. Talk about guilible? Thy name is Vickery2010!