[allmendream]

Speaking of splitting hairs - your post was AFTER the election.

If you knew and didn’t say until AFTER the election - why were you holding out on us?

One cannot prove a negative or indicate a state of knowledge beyond what people wrote - I don’t have a mind reader and/or a time machine.

But what is clear from threads about eligibility from BEFORE the election - is that the “born in country of two citizen parents” standard was not well known or widely discussed.

Why not?

[BladeBryan]

“But what is clear from threads about eligibility from BEFORE the election - is that the ‘born in country of two citizen parents’ standard was not well known or widely discussed.”

That’s putting it mildly. The 14’th Amendment and the 1898 case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark settled the matter, at least for those born in the U.S. In 1916 Breck Long argued that the citizenship of a candidate born before the 14’th Amendment “must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment”, and on that basis held that parentage mattered. [”Chicago Legal News” vol. 146]

After Long’s 1916 essay, the theory went silent. In our time, the legal literature considered the eligibility of the native-born to be clear and settled. For example:

“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.” [Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]

“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.

The Vatell theory reappeared in October or November of 2008 when amateur attorney Leo Donofrio brought the first of his losing cases, Donofrio v. Wells.

[so_real]

You seem to be quite versed in my post history. And, if as you say, one "cannot prove a negative or indicate a state of knowledge beyond what people wrote" use those research skills of yours and do your own homework: When did I first learn that Obama's purported father was not a U.S. citizen? When did I first learn that Obama was adopted by an Indonesian? When did I first learn that Obama spent his early formative years being raised out of country? When did it become clear no mystery citizen father would be produced in a genuine birth certificate? And how many of my posts prior to election were related to McCain / Palin and the Republican field? And was my post volume higher or lower prior to the election with responsibilities outside the armchair?

You've gone threw my post history to paint your picture. I've no reason to relieve those times for your benefit, and I'm sadly without "a mind reader and/or a time machine" to lend you. You either accept we birthers were given a higher standard for "natural born citizen" than you were given to understand ... or you call us liars and the onus is on you to prove it. If a genuine dispute of the material facts does not exist, why are there documented legal and judicial references to it? Pull your fingers of your ears, do some research, learn a little, and answer some questions instead of constantly pleading to be spoon-fed.

Why not?