Well, current U.S. Code appears to differ from the 18th century philosopher noted above: Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.
Hookem123 will continue to regurgitate birther website arguments no matter what. He will probably also deny that he is a birther, but no matter. Logic tells those capable of logic that a "natural born citizen" is one who is a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, as opposed to one who must undergo naturalizion. Logic is not part of the birther movement, but it is, generally, presxent in Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Here is what the US Supreme Court says about "natural born citizenry". It is cogent, persuasive, and under our system dispositive, and will therefore have absolutely no impact on Hookem123. The birther websites he obviously frequents, in addition to loving Vattel, and his very European, very unAmerican views of citizenship, have provided him with ammunition sufficient to convince him that Wong doesn't say what it very obviously says, and I can even guess which one or two sentences he will cherry pick (actually, he probably won't read Wong, he will read and parrot some birther website's take on it) to demonstrate that Wong doesn't say what it says. I suggest that all the non-mouthbreathers on this site,even those who lean toward birtherism, but retain the ability to reason, read the entire Wong decision. YOURSELF, Don't just go read some birther site egregiously unfair paraphrase of it, or accept my shorthand rendition of it. There is a lot of useful history in it. It even discusses the birthers' favorite philospher, Vattel. The dissent is the birther position. It lost. The majority clearly, explicitly, and inarguably held that person's born in this country are natural born citizens of this country, irrespective of his/her parent's citizenship. Quoting: "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that "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," contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth" "The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."The Link Birther sites ignore the "natural born" language and insist that this case somehow does not deal with "natural born" status, that a; they posit three types of citizenship, contrary to the views of the Court, and apparently pulling the argument out of some undisclosed orifice. (Under Vattel's formulation, you will note, a person born to foreign nationals would have to be naturalized, therefore the Wong decision would not be wight (couldn't resist that). Birthers cannot be persuaded by the actual words of the case; they are unpersuadable. Typically, they insist that the Supreme Courts invocation of the concept of the English common law concept of "natural born subject" when discussing "natural born cotizens" tells us nothing. On the issue of those born outside our borders to a citizen parent, this one never seemed to concern the right when it came to John McCain, Lowell Weicker, George Romney or Barry Goldwater and Republican Herbert Hoover's V.P. Charles Curtis (a different issue, but still interesting) but it is now of the utmost importance with that Nigerian Mooslim (did I spell that right, Hookem?). It was pretty much disposed of in Wong, but the birthers cannot or will not be persuaded. The poster above, who challenged Hookem's birther claptrap is correct. Statute defines when a person is a citizen by virtue of his birth. There is nothing in the Constitution to the contrary. If one is a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, then he is a "natural born citizen". Vattel's elistist European, nonegalitarian musings notwithstanding, that is the law in this country. United States v. Wong simply cannot be read by any fair minded person the way the Birthers insist it is to be read. Again, don't take it from me, read it yourself.
Great post, Whitman. And Romney was stupid to even mention the birth certificate thing. What a clumsy political misstep.
It is quite true that a child born to even only 1 USA citizen parent is born a citizen, even if the borth took place outisde the USA. This was not however the case in 1961 and that apparently caused the whole Bo is not a born US citizen. Prior to 1986 the policies governing babies born to a US citizen parent but not born in USA stipulated that the US citizen parent must have lived 10 years in USA and must have lived 5 years in USA after age 14. Of course as facts later came out BO was born in HI but back in 07 and 08 it was not known conclusively where BO was born. Granny saying he was born in Kenya fueled the rumor BO was not a born USA citizen. If Granny had been telling the truth BO would not have been a Born USA citizen. She should have STFU That seems to be the genesis of the Birther rumors back then. America is better then Birtherism
Whitman, I don't mind being called a birther, as long as you don't mind the term, afterbirther. I mean you're constantly after birthers, are you not? What you afterbirthers never bother to explain, if the founding fathers didn't use Vattel to define the term "natural born," then where did they get it? Clearly they didn't follow your link. And why did they use the term at all if not to insure the President held no dual loyalties? Afterbirthers never ask themselves why Obama has his birth records sealed, why is that? He also has his college records sealed, ever wonder why? As a matter of fact the Oman has a number of things sealed which are never questioned by afterbirthers. Afterbirthers never question not only the BC, but also any of the following......... 2) Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham)— not found, not released 3) Obama’s baptism records — sealed 4) Obama’s adoption records — sealed 5) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s reptriation as US citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released 6) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released 7) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii)— not released 8) Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released 9) Occidental College financial aid records — not released.(These records were, however, subpoenaed but Obama lawyers succeeded in quashing the subpoena in court. No other Occi records have been released.) 10) Columbia College records — not released 11) Columbia senior thesis — not released 12) Harvard Law School records (not mentioned below, but not released) 13) Obama’s law client list — sealed 14) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State Senator — sealed 15) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed 16) Obama’s medical records — not released 17) Obama’s passport records — not released Whitman would never question any of these things for fear of what? Damage to THE ONE? What then? No it's much easier for Whitman and the afterbirthers to call people names, claim they wear tin foil hats and ridicule them for having the audacity to question their fearless leader. Whitman will never consider the possibility of little Barry having given up his American citizenship when he traveled to Indonesia where he was adopted by step daddy Sotero. So many unaswered question for Whitman to ignore, but it's more fun to make sure birthers spell Muslim correctly. Never let it be said Whitman might question the Illinois State Barr as to why the President can no longer practice law. No, no that would be an unreasonable and unfair question. Racist even, stay away from it Whit. Best unasked, unanswered question yet, why did Obama himself claim he was born in Kenya? Stay away from that one too Whit. It just makes afterbirthers look foolish when they claim young Barry just wanted to look cool when chasing tail. Oops............. did Barry chase tail? Oh yeah sorry, no questions. Don't go there either Whit. You just continue doing what you do best, ridicule others for asking questions. After all, none of us deserve any answers concerning the Pesidency. Just sit down and shut up.................... and pay your duty.
So if he claimed Foreign National on his college transcripts does that mean he gave up his US citizenship?
but did he lie about being born in Kenya, or did he lie about being born in Hawaii, and no one checked? He has lied about one or both, but lairs lie, it's what they do.
Burnt Orangeman, You are spewing your typical left nonsense. Follow closely and respond as you may. 1) "The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the falla...cy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH Remember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES! Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA, and who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress So when someone tries to blame Bush.. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets. Where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th." 2) Troops that have dies by year 2001-3 2002-23 2003-30 2004-49 2005-93 2006-98 2007-110 2008-155 2009-305 2010-492 2011-398 2012-218+* (*Through July) So has our troop causilties dropped or rised under BHO???????? 3) I just went back last night and watched a ton of videos of 9-11. Still tough to swallow seeing people jump out of the wtc. I do it because I don't want to forget what those ******** did to our country. Bush with support of the Dems and Rep went on offense and called upon the best troops in the world to snuff them out or atleast made them run so they couldn't plan other attacks. You can act like Iraq was a mistake but we have a lot to show for that. Remember when Obama said he's not worried about Iran because they are just a tiny little country?????????? What a dumbass he is. Now Isreal is worried about nukes from that tiny little country. At the time Iraq had an even crazier leader and the intel was telling us there was WMD. We as a country voted on going in and there is nothing you can argue about. Remember, Iraq was just a tiny little country too. Also we got Bin Laden thanks to Bush and his admistration for their approach to waterboarding. Obama can try to take all the credit for it, but he had to use a technique he was against that found OBL location. 4) Head to head decision was Solyndra. Bush said flatout it was a bad deal. BHO being the dumb *** he is not only said yes to it, he rushed it. BHO is by far the worst President we have ever had. Carter a distant 2nd.
Obama was nearly the only one who opposed the Iraq war. When Bush took over the economy was running surpluses, when he left it was in free fall.
^^^^ If that was your basis for voting, there is no way in hell that you could vote for Obama. He has been a financial disaster.
Yes , Hookem, I continue to ridicule you. And if you think its limited to your spelling of "mooslim" you are dimmer than even your writing (or should I say copying from Orly Tate or other birther sites) style implies. I guess you had no interest in reading the Wong case, just as I predicted. (and I am quite confident that you have never read Vattel, other than the one sentence mindlessly repeated by you birthers). You ask where Madison et al could possibly have gottenthe term "natural born" if not from Vattel. (I've gone to the birther websites and that is where you got that argument) The founding fathers had more than one book. And the books they had contained more than the one sentence from Vattel that you birthers continue to quote. Among those books, are reports of cases making up the English Common law. As the US Supreme Court observed, English Commopn Law was well familiar with the concept of "natural born subjects". In the United States we don't have subjects of the crown, we have citizens, ergo the concept is transmuted to the egalitarian American version: "natural born citizen." Mystery solved!! That is in the lawbooks, despite what Orly Tate, dentist at law, tells you in your birther websites and Worldnet Daily. There are other cases too, but you wouldn't read them anyway; you want a weapon, not the truth. As for my name calling: pot, meet kettle. I continue to defend my fearless leader, The One, my hero, Barry, and the mooselims as I mindlessly refuse to even consider the splendid arguments you have mustered. As for the remainder of the drivel you wrote, I wonder if you get all your information from chain emails. I am not going to bother to debunk the bunk you traffic in, but I'll give you a link or two. You won't bother to check any of it out, just as you didn't bother to read U.S. v. Wong. It had lots of pages, didn't it?The LinkThe LinkThe Link by the way, Romney is "retired" from the bar, just like Obama The Link (That's what "emeritus" means, for thos who just get their information from chain emails. ) There are significant, legitimate issues and arguments made on this board every day by people who would never vot for Obama. I enjoy reading them and learn from them, and am often persuaded by them. It is a pleasure to read intelligent, informed argument from people whose heads are not encased in tinfoil. I am fine with people asking questions. I am not fine with people endlessly repeating email myths that are thoroughly, repeatedly debunked, only to be revived a few months later. The strategy is not about truth, it about intentionally sowing doubt amont the foolish and gullible. I don't know whether you are one of the foolish and gullible, or one of those intentionally repeating this foolishness. I have my suspicions, however.
I35 - your post was outstanding, and therefore will be ignored. When libs are challenged on facts, their answer is always one of the following: It's Bush's fault You are an ignorant lunatic You are parroting Limbaugh It's Bush's fault You are an ignorant moron You are parroting Hannity It's Bush's fault You are an imbecile You are parroting O'Reilly It's Bush's fault Bush was worse Bush is evil Bush is stupid (I would like to compare academic accomplishments with those who spout this) It's Bush's fault Etc. Etc. Etc.
You are right, AustinBat, he is not parroting Rush, or Hannity, or O'Reilly, he's stealing from an email he received.The Link Lets see about the rest of it...Troop casualties given are only for Afghanistan, I notice.If the point is that somehow Obama is a warmonger, and we had peace and plenty under Bush, uh-uh.The Link Paragraph 3, just wow. Makes a pretty complete mess out of history, smushing Iran, Iraq, 9-11and waterboarding into one fuzzy, messy thought pudding. Inaccurate too. Just one example - I35 dredges up an old John McCain lie from the 2008 campaign: "Obama says Iran is a ‘tiny’ country, ‘doesn’t pose a serious threat,’" the ad continues. "Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren’t ‘serious threats’? Obama — dangerously unprepared to be president." "This is a dishonest representation of Obama’s words."http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/08/from-the-fact-c-10/ Other than plagiarism, lack of accuracy and incoherence, I agree, AustinBat, outstanding post.
Which one of you guys is going to challenge the other to meet at the 7-11 parking lot after school for a "fight"? That's pretty much what this thread has dissolved into.
You are right NEWDOC. I am afraid that I have absolutely no rspect for the birther movement and its adherents, and my posts are therefore pretty harsh. There ae opinions that are not "just another opinion." They are poison to rational debate. I put truthers, and "Bush was in on 9-11" arguments in the same category, as well as the Swiftboating of Kerry. If we pretend that this tripe is part of the rational debate process, a fair number of people will buy into the 'where there's smoke there's fire' mentality. That is the intention of those who make this excrement up. Some people will believe this birther nonsense until the end, and will continue to reurge discredited arguments and false unformation forever. People who haven't been involved in the debate come along later and haven't seen the proof that it is nonsense. For that reason the debate gets repeated over and over and over. Pople who engage in this stuff need to be called on it. It is not healthy debate. AIt is poison.
Whitman, Several things. First off I put in quotations that blog. Here is a link that I started a while back stating I got it from a friend. I just copied and pasted it from that post to this one. Here is that topic that nobody addressed then and still haven't to this day. The Link But you are suggesting that it was plagiarism making it not true. Plagiarism is trying to take credit for something you didn't do. The issue isn't where I got it from, but if it is true or not. It's true and you don't even address what was written in it. You choose to attack the messager instead. As far as the troop total goes I did not realize the numbers I had from not showing Iraq. A buddy of mine that is a Master Sargeant in the Army based at Ft Hood gave me those numbers. I didn't intentionally try to pull a fast one as I didn't know. But to that issue we've lost too many troops under the Presidency that got the nobel peace prize. As far as BHO stating that Iran is a tiny little country. Are you trying to suggest he didn't say that? While your source is a liberal fact check I will use the most reliable source there is. BHO's own words. The Link As far as muddling the water, this is not even argued that BHO was against waterboarding while a senator. One of the terrorist that got water boarded gave out names of couriers. One led us directly to OBL The Link Again, are you going to address what you called plagiarism or argue from where it came from?
Hate to derail a good mud fight but I have a question re an assertion I have seen a couple of times lately and am genuinely curious about. I have seen it written that neither the president nor his wife can practice law in Illinois. Can someone send me to a source and an explanation of why? Thanks. Please continue.
This is a goiod example of what I'm talking about, Huisache, and I am not blaming you. This stuff gets circulated, debunked, they wait a few months, and circulate it again. To you, it is a fresh issue, and looks bad. It gets recirculated by people who kinow better and just don't care. If they can hurt Bush, or Kerry, or Obama with utter nonsense they are thrilled. Once again, I have no problem with criticisms of any candidate, or characterizations of events, even arguably unfair characterizations, that I may disagree with, or you may think are wrong. There is a qualitative difference between this, however, and the chain emails, and if someone can't see the difference, after being shown, they are beyond hope. There is a difference between seeing this stuff for the first time and investigating it, and continuing to flog it after it has been soundly debunked. But you and others seeing this stuff for the first time are rightfully concerned. You have been done a disservice, and it pisses me off. Can you tell? The law license thing is one of those fabricated issues. Barack Obama has "retired" status. That is what Illinois calls it when someone expresses that they do not intend to practice law again, and does not want to continue paying bar dues andtaking manditory continuing education courses. Romney has that status in Michigan too, where it is called "emeritus." Michelle Obama is "inactive status". That means she may return to the practice of law. She doesn't take Continuing legal education, but pays her bar dues and can easily reinstate. The LinkThe LinkThe Link
Horn, here is the full recording to which you refer. The Link Start at about 4:45. I think your criticism of Obama's step-grandmother is unfair. See alsoThe Link for an interesting discussion.
