Lefties are caterwauling about a new poll that purports to show that a quarter of Americans think Obama wasn’t born in the US. Some thoughts:
A.) The last time you guys sounded the alarm on a poll purporting to show insanity on the Right, it turned out to be bogus.
B.) If anyone thinks the Right is egging the Birthers on, he’ll have to square that theory with the fact that the list of conservative and Republican voices which rejects Birthrism includes, but is not limited to:
– RNC Chair Michael Steele
– National Review
– Human Events
– American Spectator
– Glenn Beck
– Michelle Malkin
– Ann Coulter
– Andrew Breitbart & others at his websites
In other words, anybody who’s anybody on the Right. Do I wish these morons would shut up and go the heck away? Of course. But the Right as a whole has done everything it can fairly be expected to do to stand against them…
C.) …which is more than your side can say about Michael Moore, whose lies about the Bush Administration were just as bad (arguably worse), yet the Democratic establishment embraced his film wholeheartedly?
D.) Where was your hand-wringing in 2006, when a poll showed that 1/3 of Americans thought the federal government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?
E.) Gee, I guess disgruntled Hillary supporters shouldn’t have started this Birther nonsense, should they have?
4 thoughts on “Back to Birthers”
I am glad that you bravely mentioned the topic of birthism in your article “New Lingo, Same Nonsense: Bill Maher's Repackaged Tea-Party Smears”. Though the real issue is Presidential eligibility. It certainly can be disastrous to the United States if not understood or obeyed.
Your rejection of the topic of Obama's eligibility to be President appears to be based on what “conservative media's leading voices” have said. You should consider truth and facts as the basis for your positions so as avoid the outcome of the following saying “they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”.
Is Obama eligible to be President of United States and thus Commander in Chief?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Since the present time is not the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, the person that is eligible to be President must meet the more restrictive “natural born Citizen” requirement than just being a Citizen.
So the thinking person needs to understand the definition of the term “natural born Citizen”?
The false myth spread in the media says “natural” means “native” and the words are interchangeable. Actually they are not interchangeable. Use any dictionary to ascertain this fact.
Instead of the media, go to sources that are more dependable, like one of the originators of the phrase “natural born Citizen”: Emmerich de Vattel's definition provided in the document “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)” used by George Washington; or any dictionary for the words “natural”, “citizen”, “native”; or the Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court decisions are:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814);
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830);
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875);
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
When you do this research you will find that the term “natural born citizen” requires a person to have both parents be citizens at time of birth.
It is through Obama's own testimony in speeches and in writings that his natural father (not his adopted father) was not a citizen of the United States at the time of Obama's birth, but a Kenyan African, making Obama's father a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC).
Thus only the original birth certificate (or vital records) which Hawaii has sealed and resisted all attempts to produce for public viewing must be made available to prove Obama's father was a United States citizen. Even the United States Department of State web site concurs that Obama was a dual citizen at birth due to his father being a UKC citizen. But this is due to their reliance on a website called Factcheck.org, which is an Annenberg outreach.
The official Department of State page with this declaration is written by Todd Leventhal, the Department's expert on conspiracy theories and misinformation.
Aside: Why does U.S. Dept of State not use their own records to determine U.S. citizen status of Obama's father rather than reference some website?
Thus using Obama's own words and that of the U.S. Department of State that Obama's father was not a citizen of the United States, Obama cannot be a “natural born citizen”, and thus not eligible to be President, since “both” parents were not citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.
To be continued in Part 2 of 3 comments…
Continued – Part 2 of 3 comments
Those are facts. I hope I have given you some specific, rational and thoughtful ideas regarding this topic of eligibility and hope you make it a point not to denigrate those who see the Constitution as a document worth believing in and are committed to its value, especially the eligibility clause.
Vattel definition: Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Obama supporters make the fraudulent assumption that the word “native” can be substituted for the word “natural” in the Constitution's natural born citizenship requirement of Article II, Section 1, clause 5.
The two words native and natural have entirely different meanings and are not interchangeable. The definition of “native” is always “born in a particular place or region”. In fact , the definition of native though not even close in meaning to “natural” is almost synonymous to the word “citizen”.
The word “citizen” is defined as “a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community”. Thus if a person were to substitute the word “native” somewhere in clause 5, it would not be where the word natural appears but where the word citizen appears. Clause 5 would then be written “natural born native”.
However, the word “natural” means “in accordance with nature, the fundamental characteristics that define the identity of something”. For example, the definition of a natural child is one that is related by blood compared to one who is adopted. Even though they may be adopted on the day of their birth, we still know that they are not a natural child. The characteristics of the natural parents are always there.
Thus the natural identity for a person is defined by their parents such that it is passed through a process of nature.
But as the Constitution states the President must be a natural born citizen. Just like a natural child has both parents that are biologically connected by blood, a natural born citizen has both parents that are connected not only by blood but also via citizenship to the United States at the time of his/her birth. The parents are both citizens and natural parents of the child.
Natural born is not native born.
The above definitions were obtained from the following sources:
online Macmillan Dictionary
Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary (1973)
contains the Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Supreme Court Decisions:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
To be continued in Part 3 of 3 comments…
Continued – Part 3 of 3 comments
Supreme Court Decisions (Continued):
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it”
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a 'natural born citizen':
“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
In my experience, debating people who believe in conspiracy theories is a tremendous waste of time. I'm inclined to dismiss you as well, inasmuch as you begin your comments with an obviously false statement:
“Your rejection of the topic of Obama's eligibility to be President appears to be based on what 'conservative media's leading voices' have said.”
In the passage you're quoting from, it's obvious I wasn't saying “Birtherism is false because these people in the conservative media say so.” I was challenging Bill Maher's misleading generalizations about what the conservative media was saying. If you can't accurately assess something so simple, it seems to me you should reconsider whether or not you've accurately assessed all the other information you've read on this subject.
If you want to know why I reject Birtherism, check the following links: