Who Is A “Natural Born Citizen”?


So I’m on the O’Reilly Factor and I say if the Republicans don’t put Marco Rubio on their national ticket they need to get their heads examined.  Such is my regard for the freshman senator from Florida.

What followed were emails from people who told me that Rubio can’t be vice president because the Constitution says only “natural born citizens” can be president or vice president, and he doesn’t fit the description.

Some went a tad further.  Ray said I need to “wake up.” Gregor – who signed his name “American by Birth – Patriot by Choice” said my comment about Rubio was both “uneducated” and “foolish.”  Edward said, “I’m sure you have read the Constitution but I urge you to reread Article I, Section II which gives the qualifications for president.”  David simply stated that, “Neither of Marco Rubio’s parents were citizens of our country when he was born.  Therefore, Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.”

I’m always amused when I get letters from self-appointed “scholars” who have no doubt – none! – about how knowledgeable they are when it comes to constitutional law even though not one of them spent even 10 minutes in law school.  How do I know?  If they had, trust me, they would have mentioned it – IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

Many of these people, I suspect, have another agenda, which I’ll get to shortly.  But first …

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen.”  And as Wikipedia explains, “scholars and politicians have not agreed as to whether U.S.-born children of non-citizens … qualify as natural born citizens.”

Also from Wikipedia:  “The natural born citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural born citizen.”

So what did the Founders have in mind when they used that term they didn’t bother to define?  Well, after the Constitution was ratified, some of the Founders opined about the meaning of the clause.  Here’s what James Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution, had to say on the subject in a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789:

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

So Mr. Madison, speaking directly to the question of who is and who is not a “natural born citizen” states that here in the United States “place” – or where you were born” – trumps “parentage” – the citizenship of your mother and father.

Now let’s get to what I believe is the real motive behind all of this.  And it has a lot less to do with Marco Rubio than Barack Obama.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I think some of this is birther nonsense, just the latest lame attempt to make a case that Barack Obama is not a legitimate president.  His father, after all, was not a U.S. citizen, therefore, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, and ipso facto, he should never have been allowed to become president.

In fact, one of my email pals, Cyndee, said just that:  He [Barack Obama] is not a natural born citizen because of his father.  Case closed.  While the Republicans let the Democrats get away with it, I doubt the Dems will return the favor [if Rubio becomes vice president].”

Well, case not closed.  As Wikipedia states, “Although numerous claims have been put forth that the current president, Barack Obama, is not a natural born citizen, the relevant courts have so far dismissed all lawsuits brought over this question.”

I hope the Republicans heed my advice and the advice of many others and put Marco Rubio on their ticket.  And I hope the ticket wins.  Then Cyndee or Ray or Edward or David or Gregor the Patriot can go to court and make a federal case out of it.  When they lose, I hope they will stop beating the dead horse.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • KarenKKraft

    Very amusing.  Since Augustine Washington and Mary Ball were born in British colonies, their son George wasn’t really a citizen either.  One has to marvel at the way these folks think!  Good article, Mr. Goldberg.

    • teddlybar

      Ummm . . . . I presume it’s merely an oversight that you’ve forgotten about that clause in Article II which states “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” The Constitution was officially adopted on June 21, 1788 with the ratification by New Hampshire. Therefore, the first President that the “natural born citizen” requirement actually applied to would have been John Tyler, who was born March 29, 1790. All previous Presidents as well as President Zachary Taylor would have had their eligibility governed by whether or not they were a citizen of their respective states on June 21, 1788.

      It should also be noted, as the issue at the time was that United States citizenship was a derivative of state citizenship that, as a native born
      Virginian, Augustine Washington would have, by the reckoning of those raising the two parent citizenship argument, have qualified George Washington, also a native born Virginian as a natural born citizen of the Virginia colony and therefore, upon independence from England considered a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Comanche-Shaman/100003841468323 Comanche Shaman

     Oh, by the way, I have great respect for someone that uses Wikipedia as a educational tool, doing so makes one a fool.    LMAO at you now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Comanche-Shaman/100003841468323 Comanche Shaman

    Mr. Goldberg, Genius  that you are. While belittling the rest of us whom don’t subscribe to your view of the world, and apparently your view and disrespect of the SCOTUS’ view either, though you throw their title around as though you speak for their opinions on this matter ( “The natural born citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in
    several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question- – -
    “). If the SCOTUS details what the Framers of the Constitution never doubted the term “natural-born citizen” to mean, does it really matter what situation they assign the term to, or is it more so what they define the term to represent? The SCOTUS’ duty is not to define the words or terms of the Constitution, their duty is to apply the legislative intent of the law as they apply it to given situations. Thank God , else we would have a liberal SCOTUS telling us that a word, let us say black, used in a law really means a different color , like red. What crazy interpretations of legislation we would end up with at their whim.
         
     Let us see just what the SCOTUS believes “natural-born citizen” represented in it’s original intent as employed by the Framers of the Constitution. Here is what they actually said on the matter:
      
     “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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”,  Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
        
     Furthermore, Mr. Goldberg, a review of   Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) will show you just how much they believed that as they, in reference to citizenship, said “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 wall. 162, this court held – - -” therefore CITING MINOR AS PRECEDENT (I used caps just for you, sir).
      
    I, Sir, Have given you a direct correlation  by the SCOTUS of the term “natural-born citizen” as they saw the Framers to understand it  and  being “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,- – ).

    You, Sir gave us this: ” Here’s what James Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution,
    had to say on the subject in a speech before the House of
    Representatives in May 1789:
    “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
    Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes
    from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it
    is what applies in the United States.”.

    Where is Mr. Madison’s connection in that statement to “natural-born citizen”?? Only in your mind .

    You truly O’Rielly spun on this one, Sir.

    Clark Hamblin
    El Mirage, Az.
    I am the one which filed federal case no. CV 09-00410-PHX-ROS
    but you are right, I’m not a lawyer, thank God, some people still respect ME.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bpeters3 Bill Peters

    prev | next
    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
    (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

  • Pastora

    CBW Racism Video: 12:49 markIts not OPERATIONALIZED in our fiamly/homes/community!!!!CBW – Negroes like Steve prefer ‘IDEOLOGICAL UNITY’ and they use “CONGREGATIONAL COMPLICITY”

  • Jardin

    Morning, All,Quote of the year from WND: Here’s wiishng you all the best for 2010, when we all hope Kanye West will storm on stage and steal the teleprompter from the occupier in chief.

  • Sidinho

    The MORON bmeobr botched the job ,and was in part rewarded with some well seared private parts. The rest of his reward will be forthcoming ..LIFE in prison.

  • Paige Roper Norman

    “So Mr. Madison, speaking directly to the question of who is and who is not a “natural born citizen” states that here in the United States “place” – or where you were born” – trumps “parentage” – the citizenship of your mother and father.”

    In that vein, then, are children born in the US of illegal immigrant parents considered “natural born citizens”?

    • mystylplx

      Yes.

  • Michael Le Houllier

    Prior to the 14th amendment, anyone born in the U.S. was already considered a U.S. citizen at birth and thus a natural born U.S. citizen. This comes from the common law heritage which recognzed that jus soli was the primary basis for citizenship. Until recently, England recognized this and had for centuries. There are Supreme Court decisions that have already ruled that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born U.S. citizen. This whole argument over people born on U.S. soil is over the top. President Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, and so is Rubio.

    • Last on standing

      This is BS and I don’t mean Barbara Striesand either..You need to be educated.

  • chairyogafor seniors

    Wonderful work! That is the kind of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for now not positioning this put up upper! Come on over and visit my website . Thank you =)

  • The Obama Timeline author

    You are being a bit selective in your research, Mr. Goldberg. I would like to think that you know of sources other than Wikipedia, but that is apparently not the case.

    Your logic is quite flawed. That James Madison considered place of birth more important than the citizenship of one’s parents certainly does not mean that he considered the latter irrelevant.

    In 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Unscrupulous Obots—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

    In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    • Charimon

      Please cite your srcoue regarding John McCain [going] to the Senate where is the fact that HE initiated that request? In looking at the co-sponsors, I think there is a different explanation. If it was McCain initiated/directed/orchestrated, I would have expected to see Lindsay Grahmnesty on the co-sponsor list..

  • fonts

    Thanks for the good writeup. It if truth be told was a amusement account it. Look complicated to far added agreeable from you! By the way, how can we keep in touch?

  • lady gaga

    Its like you learn my thoughts! You appear to know so much approximately this, like you wrote the e book in it or something. I feel that you simply could do with a few % to drive the message home a little bit, but instead of that, that is excellent blog. An excellent read. I’ll definitely be back.

  • Don39

    PS; Only a fool considers wikipedia a valid reference source for anything!

  • Don39

    As calmly as I can say it you are a fool. I am not a Constitutional lawyer ,but have studied law and do know how to do research as I have on this issue for several years. I am also a qualified judge. I have on my desk from a multitude of sources, mostly Constitutional lawyers and Law Reviews who define ‘natural born’ as birthright derived from the father. I will not do yours and O’Rielly’s work for you. You are both lazy pontificates and a disservice to the media and the nation. There is all the evidence one could hope for on this issue for anyone not to lazy to do the research, including Supreme Court Precedeces. Neither Jindal, Rubio, or Obama is legally eligible to be POTUS or Vice of the US of America. We have no legal POTUS or CIC. Obama being a brilliant legal scholar and Professor knows full well that he is illegally occupying the White Houser. Ignorance like yours and O’Reilly’s facilitates his crimes. Yopu are part of the problem,not the least part of the solution. You should stick to issues you know something about, if there are any.

  • Bill Cutting

    Hey Bernie

    Here’s how your legal freinds in the ruling class work. Scrub a dub dub dub

    Facts do suck some time, now don’t they.

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

    and to COA

    “You are both as dumb and they come”

    nuff said

  • Advancements inTechnology

    I’m extremely impressed along with your writing skills as neatly as with the format to your blog. Is that this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway stay up the nice quality writing, it is uncommon to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..

  • papijump online

    whoah this weblog is excellent i love studying your articles. Keep up the good work! You recognize, lots of people are searching around for this information, you could aid them greatly.

  • angry birds free

    It’s perfect time to make a few plans for the long run and it is time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I may just I wish to recommend you few interesting things or advice. Maybe you could write subsequent articles relating to this article. I desire to learn more things approximately it!

  • Garrett

    Bernie,

    A question for you…should Hamdi or Al-Awlaki be eleigible for POTUS?

    Another question…why do you ask regular citizens, with no legal training, to defend this position rather than talking to Mario Apuzzo or Leo Donofrio…2 lawyers who push the ‘birther’ view? Surely they could answer this question more cogently if an answer is actually what you seek. I guess simply mocking the masses is more fun though.

    Please read this article as well as the comments and responses. Donofrio explains why a precedent was set in Minor v. Happersett that a NBC is one born in the US with citizen parents. All of the points that you’ve heard from other lawyers that contradict that view, are addressed within the comments. The answers are logical and it is a pretty clear cut case:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

  • Phil

    Bernie,

    You rake someone over the coals for a lack of constitutional scholarship, and then you cite Wikipedia as authority for your position?

    A learned journalist you are not. A charlatan? More likely.

    By the way – I spent three years in law school, graduated cum laude, and practice law in two states. How about you?

  • ◄Dave►

    Bernie, et al,

    In my initial letter to you, and frequently elsewhere hereabouts, I have asserted that the PDF of Obama’s BC posted on Apr. 27th was an “obvious forgery.” I wish to retract that. In light of data new to me, I now find my judgement to have been in error. My explanation is available here:

    http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2011/09/01/rearranging-prejudices/

    This does not mean that the BC wasn’t copied from an inauthentic original that has somehow found its way into the HDOH vault, which Hawaii continues to go to extraordinary effort to avoid being examined by forensic experts, and it certainly does not detract from the basic definition of NBC (Born a Brit – Not Legit); but I am no longer persuaded that the PDF itself was created in a graphics program, and I will immediately stop asserting that it is an “obvious forgery.”

    Of course, it means I must now modify my knee-jerk negative opinion of politicians, candidates, and even Donald Trump, for not speaking out over such an “obvious forgery.” If the PDF is not a ‘smoking gun,’ and I now reckon it is not, we are back to debatable issues over the definition of NBC; because if there is a BC smoking gun, it is locked up in the HDOH vault, and the courts are disinclined to force them to allow anyone to see it. ◄Dave►

  • jd

    Bernie,
    Its amazing that you point out that your commentors couldn’t possibly know what they are talking about because they are not constitutional scholars but then refer to Wikipedia to make your point.

    Bernie either do the research yourself and make an intelligent conclusion or quit mocking people who know more than you.

    Here is an article written in 1789 that will give you a good starting place.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html

    also read minor v happersett
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=minor+v

    • Tynazhe

      Is there any chcane of coming up to Boca Raton after Miami? There is a store in Boca that I think would be a great venue for you Runner’s Edge. That would be awesome!

  • Martin Keene

    Bernie, the quote from Mr Madison’s speech obviously did not influence the final outcome.
    Based on the full contents of the speech I maintain he obviously discerned the import of including “natural born” with the word citizen and did not agree. In other words, like you, he disagreed with the inclusion/weight of the term “natural born citizen” and was telling those in attendance “bout his opinion!

  • ◄Dave►

    Well, at least we know that someone in the moderation department has finally visited the comment thread, although there is no way to know if it was Bernie. My original letter to him, which languished for over a week ‘awaiting moderation,’ was finally deleted from both threads on Sunday.

    Just for drill, in case he never saw it, I have edited out the http header on the too many references I offered him, which is what hung it up in moderation, and will now resubmit it for his consideration:

    ———-

    Bernie,

    No, I am not and would never wish to be a professional lawyer. I detest neckties and eschew those who adorn pencil necks with the infernal contraptions; but I could steer you to several who vehemently disagree with your opinion. They no doubt would be delighted and honored to be interviewed by an imminent professional journalist; another honorific I thankfully can’t claim. Nor am I a professional pundit; but I am a voracious reader, a consummate thinker, and a professional red-blooded American Patriot, which gives me every right to an informed opinion or two of my own.

    We are the same age and ever since I read your first book, I have always appreciated your willingness to speak your truth to power, regardless of the social consequences. I reckon you to be a good guy; so I would like to believe that you do not intend to insult my intelligence with your knee-jerk dismissive attitude toward anyone still questioning Obama’s eligibility for the office of POTUS. For me, the place and/or documentation of his birth were never issues; but his manifest ineligibility was and still is.

    Unlike many, I choose not to believe that you, of all people, are part of some media conspiracy to ignore and/or obscure the increasingly obvious fact that Obama is indeed ineligible; and that we are now facing a Constitutional crisis, which could have been easily avoided had, before his election, the Fourth Estate properly done their jobs. Concurring with your frequent observation that the myopic Left-leaning press is not a cabal, but simply creatures of their environs, I suspect a similar handicap; because you undoubtedly share my disdain for wild conspiracy theories, and grow weary of their fanatical proponents.

    They appear to waste their time, and try to waste ours, with ever increasingly fantastical claims, which are easily refuted with only a modicum of research. E.g. I am so turned-off by the so-called ‘Truther’ crowd, that my mind immediately snaps shut every time I encounter one. I long ago looked into many of their claims, applied a little critical thinking, and dismissed the subject as silly. The risk, of course, is that there might be a kernel of truth being obscured by the overwhelming nonsense, which my prejudices may now never allow me to discover.

    I could readily accept the idea of a coverup of foreknowledge of the plot; but to suggest that GWB et al planned the attack and had demolition charges awaiting it, stretches credulity beyond the limits of my imagination. Perhaps you share a similar prejudice toward some of the dimwits in the so-called ‘Birther’ movement (I shall hereinafter refer to it as the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) controversy), who have propagated some ridiculous and easily refutable nonsense. However, much of it may just be carelessly parroted disinformation, deliberately inserted into the fray to discredit more serious research (E.g. the phony Kenya birth certificate (BC) admittedly produced by an Obama supporter).

    A natural born skeptic, I deploy an uncommonly open mind in the process of forming my own opinions, rather than accept uncritically the pronouncements of so-called experts. Once thus earned, I am quite prepared to defend them; but I still endeavor to remain open to the possibility of error, and changing an opinion when new data presents itself. Yet, I am not sure what it would take to get me to waste any further time revisiting the 9/11 Truth conspiracy; so I think I understand where you are coming from.

    Still, I am at a loss to explain why your old news hound’s latent curiosity is failing to notice that the NBC controversy is growing exponentially with the latest release of an Obama BC, when it should have subsided. I would like to believe that you have not bothered to read any of the many evidence-laden charges posted at WND, by purported experts and amateur ‘Rather-gate’ type sleuths alike, rather conclusively proving to even the critical reader that it was a rank forgery, and not a very good one.

    That, in and of itself, is a news item of epic proportions, for which even Fox News is losing credibility among once loyal and devoted viewers, for deliberately ignoring. Are there no honest and/or fearless investigative journalists left anywhere in the media? It is viral out here in the Patriot/TEA Party community, and those who once found the NBC controversy crowd embarrassing, can’t help asking themselves, “Why on Earth he would have taken such a risk, if a valid BC proving his nativity narrative actually existed?” Have you? Doesn’t it suggest that there just might be something to the NBC controversy?

    This puts me at pains to think of what I could possibly offer to entice you into investing about an hour, with your mind pried open at least a crack; so that you have a fair opportunity to learn that your prejudices may need a little rearranging. The only thing I can think of, is the potential that you might could slide past O’Reilly, in fame if not fortune (although it could spawn your next bestseller), and earn the undying gratitude of the very folks most likely to buy and read your books. I have a plan that could make you a hero. All you have to lose by exploring it is an hour of time; the upside potential is enormous. Game?

    You see, the eligibility issue has never represented a conspiracy to me. I have been irrepressibly fascinated by the subject since the moment I first heard that Obama’s father was a British subject, visiting America on a student visa. It happens that my younger sister is not a NBC, because she was born in a civilian hospital in Munich, Germany, while my father was stationed there during the occupation after WWII (1947).

    Some 55 years ago, it was not thought necessary to have a Law degree and a library full of ‘case law’ books to be able to ‘interpret’ our Constitution. Written in rather plain English, it was generally thought at the time to mean exactly what it said; so, with a little help from a dictionary for the occasional archaic word, it was assumed to be easily taught (line by line as I recall) to any average junior high student. Thus, I can still remember clearly the day when my teacher revealed the startling detail that my sister and I had different classes of citizenship.

    He specifically taught us that to be a NBC required BOTH one’s parents to have been American citizens, AND one’s birth must have taken place on sovereign American territory. Interestingly, I recall him explaining how an American embassy was considered our sovereign territory too. I even remember discussing my surprise at this information with my parents that night. They allowed as how it was unlikely that my sister would ever want to be President, and in every other respect her citizenship was the equal of mine. Thus, if I were to have forgotten every other detail of our Constitution, the proper definition of NBC would still be indelibly etched in my mind.

    From day one, when Larry Johnson (whom I had liked and respected from his past frequent appearances on Fox News) was leading Hillary’s PUMA opposition researchers in unraveling Obama’s phony nativity narrative, and started the NBC controversy; I have been ranting and blogging that, while what they were uncovering was stunning, it was irrelevant. It mattered not a whit where he was born, or that he lost his American citizenship upon becoming an Indonesian citizen as a child. By definition alone, he was not a NBC, because he was born a British subject. Period. Full stop. Fini.

    You cite Wikipedia as your sole source, for flippantly dismissing the subject after reading an incomplete quote therein from Madison. The Wiki is a notoriously unreliable source, especially for topics such as this, because partisans are forever rewriting its articles to spin their side of a debatable issue. It is great for a quick overview of a new subject, and I do frequently use it as a starting point for research. It rather nicely aggregates links to reference material and alternative research sites; but I have learned never to regard it as authoritative, and I would regard doing so as a bit sloppy for a reporter.

    Are you ready for your shot at Journalist of the Year? If nothing else, you may gain a better insight into the demographics of the purchasers and readers of your books, which being cloistered in NYC may hamper. Here is your assignment. First, read my recent essay at:

    http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/essays/support-and-defend/

    It won’t be a waste of time. One commenter recently remarked:

    “That is the best synopsis and logical article I have read … gets to the heart of the matter and offers a practical recourse in the hands of the people themselves. I have turned the article into a PDF (& added a little artwork) that should be easy for everyone to send by email to as many people as they can. The PDF is available on my site at:
    modernfeudalserf.org/articles/support_and_defend.pdf
    As a PDF it can also be easily printed and passed around that way too.”

    When I went to his website, I found it featured on the front page introduced thusly:

    “Editor :: This article is a MUST-READ. Dave Hunter hits the nails right on the head with a factual, logical and easily understood article explaining the history, mechanics and remedy concerning the usurpation of the Whitehouse (sic) and the overthrow of the American republic. Make sure you pass this on to everyone you can.”

    When you get to the place where I suggest what Donald Trump or Sarah Palin et al could do to change the course of history, plug your own name in alongside theirs. Then, after finishing reading the downside in the “Aftermath” section, ponder long and hard as to whether, if you were to become convinced Obama was not a NBC, you have enough moxie to ask for the podium at the National Press Club, and cajole at least C-Span and Fox News into having their cameras rolling. If not, go back to sleep and peace be upon you. I am sorry to have disturbed you.

    If so, you are on the hero’s path. You will now need to do the independent research necessary to become absolutely convinced that my junior high history teacher was teaching us the truth. Before embarking on your journey, permit me to offer an observation or two regarding the only obstacles you will encounter – slime drenched prevaricating lawyers. Fortunately, Obama’s fatal tactical error, of walking up to the microphone and personally vouching for the fraudulent birth certificate on April, 27th, will render them toothless in the end game; but we have to get you past their obfuscation in your own mind, before you can initiate it.

    First, you will need to decide if you are an Originalist regarding the meaning of the plain language in our Constitution – that the words therein mean exactly what our Founders intended them to mean when they penned this contract. Or, do you buy the Progressive notion that it is somehow a ‘living document,’ which can be reinterpreted by arbitrary judicial fiat from time to time, to reflect evolving societal paradigms, without needing bother with the cumbersome Amendment process. If you agree with ‘Original Intent,’ you remain on the hero’s path.

    Please understand that respect for common sense, truth, and real justice were discarded from the legal profession long ago. They have been replaced by an unholy reverence for procedure, plausible deniability, and precedent. Ignoring any latent sense of justice, the esteem a modern lawyer earns from his peers, is strictly based on how effective he is at employing every trick in their tool bag, to prevent a client from losing in court, regardless of the facts of a case.

    A dismissal over some arcane procedural issue is celebrated equally with an acquittal. Coercing a defendant to settle a nuisance lawsuit out of court, because it is cheaper and far less time consuming than fighting it, is the equivalent of winning on the merits to these characters. Tying up the courts and righteous plaintiffs for years, with dilatory procedural tactics to run out the clock and run up their fees, rather than allow the merits of the case to be addressed in court, is reckoned just good lawyering.

    Thus, Obama has spent a couple of million dollars, much of it probably ours, in legal fees over the past three years; and allowed a Constitutionally conscious military officer, merely upholding his own oath, to actually go to prison, just to prevent having to do what he subsequently casually did on April 27th. Honestly ask yourself why, while listening carefully to your intuitive gut, and you will remain on the hero’s path.

    Then realize that this is no less than a SCOTUS issue. They have never found a need to rule on the actual definition of NBC; but they are still permitted to use common sense. Since the Constitution very definitely makes a distinction between a ‘citizen’ (required for legislative office), and a ‘NBC’ (required for CinC) doesn’t that in an of itself suggest that they are not meant to refer to one and the same thing thing as Obama’s defenders suggest? There is no way to legitimately mangle the 14th Amendment in a manner that would in any way modify the Founder’s obvious intent in the NBC clause. Thus, the SCOTUS’ primary resource for divining what they intended, would of necessity be a contemporary English dictionary.

    Failing that, they would need to seek a written definition in other contemporary texts, especially legal texts. Enter Vattel’s, “The Law of Nations,” (1758) and first translated into English in 1760. It not only defines the term precisely; but while a newborn’s citizenship customarily followed the father’s back then, he actually used the plural ‘parents’ when defining NBC. You might appreciate the comments regarding our Founders familiarity and use of this legal scholar’s book at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nations

    Dig deep enough, and you should come to the realization that had Vattel not conveniently provided a precise term for the concept John Jay was requesting be placed into the qualifications of CinC, they would undoubtedly have articulated their intent more verbosely. Then, note Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 or our Constitution; to wit:

    “[The Congress shall have Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

    Now, pray tell, since they ‘neglected’ to define this term also (suggesting there was not the slightest dispute regarding its meaning among them); what do you suppose they meant by ‘Law of Nations?’ Would we need to go through a lot of contorted legal research and lawyerly review of a couple of hundred years of subsequent ‘case law,’ to reach and informed opinion as to their intent here? Or might we be permitted to use a little common sense and Occam’s razor, to conclude they were referring to the same subject matter as the book by that name, which they were using as a valued reference for their task at the time?

    My point is, that once all the dilatory tactics have run their course, and some brave judge finally agrees to hear the merits of one of the dozens of cases that keep getting dismissed on various procedural grounds (chief among them that a mere American citizen lacks ‘standing’ to challenge the eligibility of one of our employees for high office), these clever legal eagles will immediately switch gears. Then will begin the obfuscating blizzard of legal briefs, trying to shoehorn obscure dicta within various obscure ‘case law’ lower court decisions, to suggest that some obscure partisan judge in the past, has effectively modified the plain meaning of the term NBC as used within their plastic Constitution.

    One already encounter’s such arguments from young Obama friendly attorneys, who have been programed in modern law school not to think for themselves; but to seek answers to all legal questions within their ‘case law’ libraries. Don’t swallow their arguments without chewing first. I assure you that there are plenty of old guard Constitutional scholars and attorneys, who will vociferously disagree with them. Find them before reaching your own conclusions, and you shall remain on the hero’s path.

    Since you are obligated to check out my quotes and assertions anyway, I will leave you now to your own due diligence. Here are a few good places to start:

    federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

    puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html

    naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    I would appreciate a reply, if you can find the time, to let me know if you are interested; or why not? Else, I’ll need to expand my search for our savior. Remember, the first one to the podium wins the grand prize. I am also curious if you folks writing books for this genre ever bother to read each other’s work. Have you read any of the three I mentioned in my essay? Which; and what did you think of them?

    I would think Cashill’s exposé in particular, would rub honest scribes the wrong way, no matter their politics. Obama must serve some powerfully potent Kool-Aid! I find it puzzling how little coverage any of them got in the media, yet all were seriously researched efforts, by well-credentialed and accomplished writers.

    Regards,

    ◄Dave►

  • ◄Dave►

    We are talking to ourselves here, folks. Unable to find his e-mail address, I posted a letter to Bernie in the forum, which only got a half dozen views and no replies the first day. Realizing the forum was dead, I posted it out here on both NBC threads. I’m afraid I offered him too many links, so they have now been hung up for “moderation” for another day now. I’d surmise that Bernie and crew aren’t paying much attention to our discussion.

    I should have just posted one link to it on my blog:

    http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2011/07/26/to-bernie-goldberg/

    Check it out if you have the time and interest.  ◄Dave►

  • Trial

    Bernie has conveniently left out something very important about that segment on the O’Reilly Factor. In the segment, Bernie says:

    “I would put him on the ticket if he was from Guam”

    • Benjy

      Errr, Guam is a U.S. territory, so if he was from Guam he would still have been born in the United States.

      • Chester A. Arthur

        Guam is not a U.S. State. John McCain may not have been a natural born citizen because he was born in a U.S. territory. While most people agree McAin was natural born, there was some controversy. If Rube was born in Guam, he would not only have a U.S. parent citizen issue, he would also have contention on his birth place. Ih’ve found an article which brings this up: http://www.nolanchart.com/article1582_John_McCain_Born_in_Panama_can_he_even_be_President.html

  • Ernest Frank

    Justice Antonin Scalia made the following observation in the Second Amendment case Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 , (2008):
    “In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

    Dean Haskins, Mario Apuzzo and Orly Taitz, all great constitutional scholars, take the position that “natural born Citizen” has some super secret pure unadulterated meaning. While the subsequent case law demonstrates the folly of this assertion, simply referring to Justice Scalia’s rule of statutory (constitutional) construction, all we need do is ask what “natural born Citizen” meant in 1789. The word “natural,” at the time, meant nothing more, nothing less than “native.” Thus, a “natural born Citizen” was one who was :”native born.” And the two terms have been used interchangeably in the case law ever since.

    This is also what we were all taught in school until 69 million Americans elected a conciliating centrist Democrat who had too much melanin for the birthers in 2008. Then, to find some magical way to extirpate his Presidency, they came up with this new interpretation, which no lawyer, judge or constitutional scholar, let alone any historian, had ever thought about before 2008. And as to those who have thought about it since, except for 6 buffoon lawyers, and a few lay people, none of whom know what “dictum” means, or how to interpret case law, they’ve got their magical interpretation that fits Barack Obama (and Mario Rubio and Piyush Jindal) perfectly.

    There are a million lawyers in the U.S. and 6 have glommed onto this theory. Thousands of judges and none buys it. It’s a huge conspiracy to the Haskins, Apuzzos and Taitzes of the world. Indeed it is. 308,000,000 people are in on it. And the birthers are outside of the candy store with their noses pressed against the glass window, looking inside and steaming the glass.

    The birther summit is going to be a hilarious example of epic fail. But I doubt more than 10 people will show up.

    • obamaisafraud

      you said…..”Well, case not closed. As Wikipedia states, “Although numerous claims have been put forth that the current president, Barack Obama, is not a natural born citizen, the relevant courts have so far dismissed all lawsuits brought over this question.”

      The cases have NEVER once gone to discovery, which would force obama to reveal actual, certified documents! You claim the case is settled because it was never examined! Brilliant Bernard, just brilliant.

      I implore you….look at the evidence, talk to Dr. Jerome Corsi, just once! To satisfy your smug assertion that it’s all nonsense, talk to Zebest, LOOK at the different ts in the word STUDENT in the long form BC on whitehouse.gov and then tell me that a typewriter in 1961 MAGICALLY produced two different ts in one word! Look at how MALE does not dip down like SEX above it and the line below it, although the obama story is that the original BC was taken from the vault and placed on a coper/scanner, hence the dropped down words/graphics on the left side. Bernie, you are missing the scoop of your life! You will be THE journalist all others will be forced to acknowledge as superior IF You will MERELY look at the evidence! Please contact Corsi or Farah, prove us all wrong, after you’ve actually looked at the experts analysis. It is 100% impossible that that document was NOT fabricated.

      • bob

        There’s no competent evidence to suggest that State of Hawaii fraudulently procured either a COLB or long-form birth certificate for President Obama. And the opinion of a self-anointed “expert” will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom.

        And since you love Zebest, so much:
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/59087668/Response-to-Zebest

        • Jeff U

          Proof of forgery surfaces every week. The latest is very compelling – “multiple layers with differing colors over the same pixel”. Scans are based on resolution and color depth. Most common scanners can do 24-bit (17,000 million colors) and upto 36-bit (68 billion colors), with the trade off in file size. No scanner is an x-ray machine – it will not let you see what’s behind an object. The long for COLB was provided by the White House in multiple layers, but someone did a poor job in leaving it that way because scanners cannot separate color blends into different layers. It will identify one color (from it’s color depth) for each pixel that is scanned. The existance of multiple layers and color blending are evidence that someone created it with multiple images and forgot to flatten the colors into one layer. That spells FORGERY!

          Follow the methodology by Tom Harrison using Illustrator and you will come to the same conclusion. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=326565

          • bob

            Again: There’s no competent evidence to suggest that State of Hawaii fraudulently procured either a COLB or long-form birth certificate for President Obama. And the opinion of a self-anointed “expert” will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom.

            NRO’s CTO explained the layers “mystery” the day the long form was released; is NRO also in on the conspiracy?

            http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

            But, please: Keep up this routine, and you will see President Obama leave office. In 2017.

          • Jeff U

            The Director of Hawaii Dept of Health Fuddy and Attorny General (Deputy Nagamine) have been served subpoenas to be available the first week of August to inpect the “original” birth certificate (if it exists.) Fuddy left the island and Nagamine is on leave. No opposition to subpoenas have been filed within the 14 day filing period (11-26). I’m assuming they will show up or have already left the country.

            As for NRO article, I’ve scanned documents and none have come out in layered PDFs. Why would you even need them layered unless your were planning to edit them?

          • Jeff U

            Sure sounds like the Attorny General’s office is claiming “plausible deniability.”

            http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/28/hi-ag-denies-having-information-supporting-department-of-health-claim/

          • bob

            You are, of course, referring to Taitz’s lawsuit. I stopped counting how many mistakes Taitz made in her pathetic attempt to subpoena the long-form birth certificate, but I GUARANTEE that Hawaii Department of Heath will not comply, and will suffer no adverse effects for ignoring Taitz.

            The point of the NRO article (and others) is that layers is a relatively common artifact of scanning (especially if done by someone who doesn’t know much about scanning). Which is why you’ll find no actual expert who think the presence of layers is particularly meaningful. Layers do not equal forgery.

          • Jeff U

            Layers are just one of numerous questionable issues that not even the factcheckers can address, much less keep up with.

          • bob

            It is much easier to create junk pseudoscience than it is to debunk it.

            But the bottom line is the same: WND’s self-anointed experts will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom. Actual experts have said there’s something unusual about the digital version President Obama’s birth certificate. And the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly stated that President Obama was born in Hawaii (which is sufficient for natural-born citizenship).

          • Jeff U

            Taitz has already seen the inside of a courtroom, and the experts will be backing her (with signed affidavits) as this moves along.

            The State of Hawaii declared him as a “natural-born citizen”, but on what grounds? He can’t even pass the McCain resolution test because his father was not an American citizen! Even the DNC has never declared him constitutionally eligible, as they have with all previous candidates. I guess that’s just something NRO is not interested in pursuing.

          • bob

            Taitz has been sanctioned $20,250 so far for her antics in the courtroom; the opinion of Taitz’s “experts” have never been admitted into evidence by a court. The State of Hawaii will not honor Taitz’s “subpeona,” and it will suffer no ill effects for doing so.

            The State of Hawaii, knowing that President Obama was born in Hawaii, applied the commonly-accepted definition that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizen to conclude he was eligible. (The “McCain resolution” only applies to those born outside of the United States; President Obama was born in Hawaii.)

            Most states do not require a party to declare its candidates eligible, but Hawaii does, and the DNC’s papers filed with the State of Hawaii expressly declare President Obama eligible.

            Any more lies?

          • bob

            I like pie.

        • Jeff U

          You lie! Show me the State of Hawaii’s DNC declaration – you have no proof that they declared him constitutionally eligible to be president. In accordance​ with US Constituti​on, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural-b​orn citizenshi​p” as establishe​d by SCOTUS in Minor v. Happenstat​t (http://nat​uralbornci​tizen.word​press.com/​2011/06/30​/the-expre​ss-lane-to​-natural-b​orn-clarit​y/) each natural parent MUST be American citizens prior to the child’s birth for him to be a “natural-born citizen”. Obama Sr. was a British subject.

          • bob

            DNC certified that President Obama was legally qualified under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

            http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2008-DNC-Nom-Form-top-450×230.jpg

            Since birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship, the certification was accurate.

            You may like the words of Donofrio, the semi-professional poker player who is looking at a $100,000 because latest foray into court was called “utterly frivolous, but no judge, professor, or expert agrees with him. Actual experts all agree birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.

          • Jeff U

            Sorry, but that’s NOT what State of Hawaii declared. You lie again. And what fool would listen to a poker player?

          • bob

            Did you not click on the link, demonstrating that that was exactly what was declared? Go ahead; I can wait.

            Donofrio is the “brains” behind this imaginary two-citizen parent requirement. But I agree; no one should listen to him.

          • Jeff U

            Blogging with you is like banging my head against the wall. Your link doesn’t show what the State oh Hawaii declared. That statement is from the DNC, who IS NOT the State of Hawaii, but I guess you don’t know the difference.

          • bob

            The DNC of America certified that President Obama was constitutionally eligible. The DNC of Hawaii certified President Obama was eligible under DNC rules, which requires candidates to be constitutionally eligible.

            Do you really think anyone in the DNC of Hawaii does not think President Obama is eligible.

  • Dan Haggerty

    Well, case not closed. As Wikipedia states, “Although numerous claims have been put forth that the current president, Barack Obama, is not a natural born citizen, the relevant courts have so far dismissed all lawsuits brought over this question.”

    All that means is that the courts have dismissed the case. This has been done most notably in the case of Lt. Cdr. Charles Kerchner. His case was dismissed, the court said, because he had “no standing”. That does not mean the court ruled one way or the other on the issue.

    • Dean C. Haskins

      Dan, you have obviously not drunk the koolaid. The Fogblow says you’re a very naughty boy–now, drink up before you start spewing anymore truth on this page!

      • gorefan

        Hi Dean,

        Here is a response to your comment:
        Dean C. Haskins
        July 20, 2011 | 7:15 pm

        “We’re talking about the Constitution here, not state charters and such. Under the federal authority of the Constitution, we are not subjects, but citizens.”

        Dean, here is what you fail to understand. The Framers came from the various stats, they helped write the laws and Constitution of those states.

        Some states like New York, Delaware, New Jersey specifically incorporate the English Common Law into their Constitutions.

        Under English Common Law, anyone born in the realm was a “natural born” subject. When these states added the English Common Law to their Constitutions they added this definition.

        The Framers didn’t change the definition of “natural born” in the Constitution. So how would people in states like New York, Delaware, New Jersey know what the new definition was?

        • Dean C. Haskins

          Simply by the framers’ overall appeal to Natural Law vs. the Common Law of the country from which they declared independence. Hence, their use of “citizen” rather than “subject” for purposes of federal law.

          • gorefan

            Are you referring to natural law as described in Blackstone’s Commentaries?

            Natural law and common law are not mutally exclusive.

            It is why the Founders were able to declare themselves “natural born subjects” by “the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts”.

          • Lena

            Nancy Peacock Maybe it wasn’t even coopmsed by a Newspaper rather was coopmsed by the same NINCOMPOOP OBOT who photoshopped the photograph. Newspaperes don’t often make typographical punctuation errors.

  • Garrett

    Mr. Goldberg,

    With all due respect, just have an open discussion about this in the media and maybe we won’t be forced to resort to Constitutuional legal analysis on our own. Explain why anyone asking this question is labeled with a scarlet ‘B’ to signify their birtherism? Why not have the leading scholars on both sides of the issue have a fair, honest and open debate? Isn’t that what the news media is about? Taking complex issues and reporting on the facts of both sides. I think it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that YOU have NBC fatigue when the media, of which you are a part, haven’t even discussed the issue seriously once. Really!? Fatigue? If anyone has fatigue it is those of us who are trying to find clarification on this issue and who feel that a proper legal analysis is being avoided. Maybe you should write another article wherein you take shots at the medai and yourself. You are the reason this discussion must happen in online forums.

  • John Martin

    How dare anyone dispute what a main stream media talking head has to say. Even a federal judge has said this issue has been resolved on the internet and twitter. Who needs to resort to the constitution a document that only restricts people from doing what feels good unless of course they need constitutional protection from prosecution for their excesses.

    The media ignored this constitutional issue and installed a selected president, the courts will not hear the issue on merrit because they would have to act against the will of the media. That part of article 1 section 8 par 10, congress has the power to prosecute violation of the Law of Nations is no longer relevant since twitter dosen’t agree with it.

    Well Bernie not much else to say.

    Heil Obama

  • Creg Maroney

    Bernard Goldberg you wrote: ” I’m always amused when I get letters from self-appointed “scholars” who have no doubt – none! – about how knowledgeable they are when it comes to constitutional law even though not one of them spent even 10 minutes in law school.”

    Then you cite ” WIKIPEDIA ” as your main source for information defining an Article 2 natural born [C]itizen.

    Bernard Goldberg do you not know ” Wikipedia’s ” motto? ” WIKIPEDIA the free encyclopedia [[ ANYONE ]] can edit.”

    • Garrett

      Great point. Let Goldberg debate Donofrio on this issue. Doesn’t even have to be nationally broadcast. What do you say Bernie? You obviously think it’s a simple issue. Will you have a respectful debate with Leo Donofrio if he will agree (and I suspect he just might)?

  • CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    And what does Emer de Vattel state in his/the preeminent legal treatise of that century “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” about the terms Citizen and “natural born Citizen”? Read this and see:
    http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

    And don’t let detractors try to convince you that because Vattel’s works were written in French that the founders and framers did not fully understand what he meant. Many of the founders and framers were fluent in French. And France was our ally in the Revolution. Read this for absolute proof as to what Vattel meant by the term he used … the naturels.

    Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French “naturels” to mean “natural born”
    http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/absolute-proof-the-founders-knew-and-accepted-vattels-french-naturels-to-mean-natural-born/

    Don’t fall for the disinformation and misinformation tactics of the progressive far left which has been trying to rewrite the meaning and intent of the founders and framers words since the early 1900s. Read and study and learn.

    Read this excellent essay on the original meaning and intent of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution and Supreme Court decision addressing the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” by eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

    • Garrett

      Great job Charles. I somehow doubt that Bernie will quote you in his next article though. He’ll pick someone who sounds a bit loopy…I wonder why?

  • Andrea Shea King

    From Doug Ross’ Director Blue blogsite:
    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/07/ill-give-you-three-guesses-whos-behind.html

    I’ll Give You Three Guesses Who’s Behind The Daily Caller’s Migraine Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann (Or Should I Call It ‘The Daily Cromney’?)

    Monday’s feature article on Michele Bachmann in The Daily Cromney (“Stress-related condition ‘incapacitates’ Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged”) was one of the more thinly veiled Beltway hit pieces in recent memory. Reporter Jonathan Strong — if that is his real name — utilized a series of laughably anonymous and unattributable allegations to tar Bachmann.

    The Minnesota Republican frequently suffers from stress-induced medical episodes that she has characterized as severe headaches. These episodes, say witnesses, occur once a week on average and can “incapacitate” her for days at time

    …Some close to Bachmann fear she won’t be equal to the stress of the campaign, much less the presidency itself.

    …“As president, when she’s in crisis management mode, is she going to have the physical ability to withstand the most difficult challenges facing America?” the former aide asks.

    TheDC agreed to provide the sources anonymity because they were providing information only a select group of people could know, at great professional risk…

    …Two sources independently provided detailed accounts of Bachmann’s condition. A third source confirmed that Bachmann frequently suffers from debilitating headache episodes.

    Coincidentally, two sources reported to me that Jonathan Strong enjoys consorting with underaged panda bears. They brought this information at great professional risk to themselves. A third source confirmed that Strong has been seen at the zoo late at night wearing only a trench coat.

    I find it fascinating that a powerful media outlet — associated with an inside-the-Beltway regular, Tucker Carlson — suddenly attacks Michele Bachmann using New York Times-style tactics (remember the fabricated McCain/lobbyist affair hit piece?). There’s only one reason for this sort of thing: Mitt Romney is feeling the heat.

    And, gee, Tucker, aren’t there more important things to “investigate” if we’re going to save this Republic?

    Ah… Sorry to bother you President Obama, Sir

    Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, sir. Uhm… know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean serving as president is very important and . . . ah… I hate to bother you. I will only take a minute okay, sir?

    See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.

    Hey, this White House sure is a nice place! The wife sees pictures of this place on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!

    Oh, sorry sir. I didn’t mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island? No, I didn’t think so…

    Well, listen, anyways, I can’t seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be ‘locked’ or ‘not available’. I’m sure it’s just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are… … …have them written down here somewhere… oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I’ll just read it to you.

    Could you help me please find these things, sir?

    1. Occidental College records and transcripts — Not released
    2. Columbia University records and transcripts — Not released
    3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
    4. Harvard University records and transcripts — Not released
    5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
    6. Medical records — Not released
    7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
    8. Law practice client list — Not released
    9. Written correspondence with B. Ayers, R. Khalidi, E. Said, J. Wright, etc. — Not released
    10. Embossed, signed paper Birth Certificate — Not released
    11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
    12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
    13. Record of Baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
    14. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’

    Oh hey… listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow. And the day after…

    ‘Who wants to know these things?’ asks President Obama.

    The American People, answers Columbo.

    But not Tucker Carlson, apparently.

    You can help out Michele Bachmann’s campaign here.

    Related: Famous Americans with Migraines.

  • CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    Did the founders of the United States and framers of the U.S. Constitution use and refer to Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law to justify their revolution and to shape the new form of government for the United States, a constitutional republic? Yes indeed they did! Here are the words of Benjamin Franklin as one example.

    Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending him 3 more copies of the newest edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
    http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks-charles-dumas-of-the-netherlands-for-sending-him-3-more-copies-of-the-newest-edition-of-vattels-law-of-nations/

    Other founders and framers referring to and seeking guidance from Natural Law and the Law of Nations included Thomas Jefferson, John Jay (became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court), and George Washington.

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org/
    http://cdrkerchner.wordpre​ss.com/

  • CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!
    http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president-the-founders-and-framers-emphatically-decided-it-was-not/

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org/
    http://cdrkerchner.wordpre​ss.com/

  • Creg Maroney

    Surely Bernard Goldberg you do not consider ” Wikipedia ” as a reliable source over the SCOTUS, do you?

  • Creg Maroney

    Barack Hussein Obama Has Not Produced Anything But A Forged Document AND OBAMA’S FOREIGN-CITIZEN FATHER PRECLUDED HIM FROM BEING A ” NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ”
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/07/barack-hussein-obama-has-not-produced-anything-but-a-forged-document/

  • Creg Maroney

    TO BELIEVE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE BORN ON U.S. SOIL YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS IGNORANTLY PREPOSTEROUS.
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/28/ignorantly-preposterous/

  • Teo Bear

    Hey Bernie,

    Interesting use of Wikipedia, but didn’t you say in your article “Did You Know George Washington Was Born in Saudi Arabia?” that,

    “After a bad experience with Wikipedia, when someone posted malicious information about me, I went on Fox and said that whatever else Wikipedia is, it’s also a platform for anonymous defamation. People put all sorts of misinformation on the site. Yes, I know there are mechanisms to delete slanderous material, but it’s up there for the world to see, until the victim learns of it – if he ever does – and takes it down.” Bernie Goldberg ;->

    Just so you do know that the Supreme Court did rule on the qualifications of the President in Happersett v Minor and the Supreme Court said a natural born citizen is a person who is born with unalienable and undivided allegiance. So hw can a person who is a dual citizen at birth have undivided allegiance to only one country?

  • Ray

    Hey Benie,

    Just curious where all your article is posted, other than BirtherReport.com? Has it generated a lot more traffic to your site? What is your take on our Birther Queen “Orly Taitz”? You should keep your eye on her at orlytaitzesq.com. Better yet, why don’t you send her a few bucks, it will be the best money you ever spent. And when it is all said and done, you could say you were a big supporter. What ever you are raking in at Fox is going to be in jepordy.

  • Kanbun

    Hey Bernie-Are you kidding me? It is a fairly straightforward thing to find the historical meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”, including opinions of the scholars that you bemoan and more importantly the SCOTUS Minor v Happersett decision, which by the way is BINDING PRECEDENT on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. Hey, how about this – tell us all where the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” at the time of the founders comports with Wikipedia for crying out loud. The only thing you will find is the Vattel definition, which eliminates your boy Obama and Marco as well. If Marco has a spine, he will stand up for the constitution and announce that he’s not eligible, but I suspect the Obama fraud has now made it possible for ANYBODY to be POTUS.

  • CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof is not a fringe issue of concern by only a few Americans as is being characterized in the main stream media which wants to portray it as such. Many polls have shown a very significant portion of the American electorate wants the charges against Obama investigated by Congress. In the latest poll, 50% of the American people said they want Obama investigated by the Congress. It is time for U.S. House Speaker Boehner to take action and call for investigations in the House of Reps of Obama’s criminal activities which include election fraud, forging a birth certificate, using a SSN that the Social Security Administration says was never issued, and back dating his draft registration using his corrupt political allies in the Chicago IL regional draft registration office :
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageI​d=314585

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org/
    http://cdrkerchner.wordpre​ss.com/

  • Dean C. Haskins

    Hey Bernie,

    Would you do me a favor and at least read this? http://www.birthersummit.org/news/15-eligibility-our-line-in-the-sand.html

  • Ray Smith

    Hey Bernie,
    Will you be going on O’Reillys’ show anytime
    soon to apoligize to the Birthers ?
    I’m inclined to believe Roger Ailes will not
    allow any meaningful discussion of this subject.

  • Clarence De Barrows

    Bernie: I’m sure you’ve heard that the Founders paid heed to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” in “Vattel’s Law of Nations”, when including that requirement for anyone seeking the Presidency of the United States in our Constitution, or not? Given Vattel and the various court decisions attesting to the validity of that understanding, why the obfuscation?

    • Cuciuc

      OOPS. Franken alayws sticks his 1 cent where it is not called for LOL menat to just post ACORN story but Al Franken is a good read as well.

  • Bill Cutting

    “If you want to see some heads explode than suggest a Rubio/Jindal ticket in 2016″

    Seeing how Rubio is being suggested “right now” for VP, which last time I checked carried the same qualifications as POTUS.
    I don’t see any heads exploding.Pointing out the Law ( Minor v Hapersett)is scary isn’t it.

    Bernie G.
    Look up “Is Charles Evans Hughes a Natural Born Citizen uncder the Constituion” By former secretary of state Breckinridge Long.
    You and O’reilly might learn something.

    History is fun !

    • ttard

      Mine is about ready to pop based on the lack true discussion in our press and govt. about this topic. If a Rubio/Jindal ticket ever materializes then please come to CNY where I live to help clean up the mess.

    • gorefan

      “Charles Evans Hughes”

      He quit the Supreme Court to run for President in 1916. He almost beat Wilson.

      He was reappointed to the Supreme Court and became Chief Justice.

      Do you think he considered himself a “natural born Citizen”?

      • ttard

        I’m 5’8″ and weigh 230lbs, yet when I look in the mirror I think of myself as somewhat attractive. Just because someone’s thinking is flawed doesn’t mean they are right. Remember the Supreme Court also ruled against Dred Scott and we know where that decision led.

        • gorefan

          The same could be said of Breckingridge Long’s statement. Maybe he’s wrong.

          • ttard

            That’s exactly why we need leaders in our govt. who aren’t timid or politically correct to do the research and rule accordingly. Also a press that forces them to confront these sorts of issues instead of going along to get along.

          • gorefan

            “That’s exactly why we need leaders in our govt. who aren’t timid or politically correct to do the research and rule accordingly”

            Or we could leave it up to the people to decide in the next election.

          • ttard

            Wow gorefan you really seem to be running out of ammo with that statement. All the Libs. I know never say leave it up to the people. The constitution is supposed to be outside the whims of the people according to all the pro gay marriage crowd and the old anti slavery crowd. The only way to get your guy eligible is to amend the constitution or simply ignore it like you and Mr. Goldberg would have us do.

          • gorefan

            I have no problem leaving it to the people to decide.

            The leaders have already decided – do you see even one member of Congress supporting your position.

            I’m sorry, they disagree with you. Obviously, their defintion of “natural born” is closer to mine then to yours.

          • ttard

            gorefan that just brings us full circle to the point I made previously;that our political leadership is timid, already in the pocket of the two political parties or simply ignorant of the constitution. However if you want a pure democracy instead of a constitutional republic then ask for a constitutional convention(leaders of both parties will never let that happen,check out http://www.cc2.org/.)

          • gorefan

            “Timid and in the pocket” or they disagree with your definition of natural born.

            What you need to do is find candidates who agree with your definition and vote for them.

          • ttard

            In NY that is about as likely as not having snow in Syracuse in January.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            . . . or Fogblow saluting the flag.

          • gorefan

            I know that feeling, I lived in rural Georgia for eight years.

            As for a pure democracy, I tend to agree with Zephaniah Swift,

            “It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

  • ttard

    Well Mr. Goldberg, you’ve gone and done it now. The little I knew about you I generally liked, but with this column I’ll have to take you off my Holiday card media list.
    No, I don’t have a law degree, but I have taken constitutional law classes and taught US History and Govt.I always believed like you did, that birth in the US (still questionable with the current guy) made you natural born,now I know differently. Because I love our founding document I began my research into the current guy in the White House’s eligibility and lo and behold here’s what I uncovered with a tiny bit of journalistic effort.(http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/)
    The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens and The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Lastly, The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt.
    Why is it that a non journalist like myself can find this and hundreds of other stories about the guy living in my house in D.C. but the pros like yourself and the courts and the Congress and the Electors in the states cannot? Why is this guy being protected? Is it simply fear of insurrection, institutional guilt, or have we simply reached the point of affirmative action at the highest level of govt.
    Oh and by the way, I’m a registered Democrat,but born white(so must be racist) and I would protest as much about Marco Rubio even though I like his politics a lot.

    • Dean C. Haskins

      You know, ttard, your comment got me to thinking, so I went and did a little checking of my own. Bernie said this, “I’m always amused when I get letters from self-appointed “scholars” who have no doubt – none! – about how knowledgeable they are when it comes to constitutional law even though not one of them spent even 10 minutes in law school. How do I know? If they had, trust me, they would have mentioned it – IN CAPITAL LETTERS!”

      And then I checked, and he appears to have only a bachelor’s degree, no law degree, or scholarly original works about constitutional law, and yet he somehow fancies himself enough of an expert to casually dismiss those of us who have done our homework, and state pure propaganda as fact. Methinks I smell a huge pile of hypocrisy here.

      Dean C. Haskins
      Executive Director, The Birther Summit
      http://www.birthersummit.org

      • ttard

        As Michael Savage would say,”the stench from the bench makes you clench”

  • robin in fl

    as always bernie well said.
    i mentioned on a post on youe site that i liked the idea of rubio being vp for 8 yrs and then being able to take over as com in chief.i think he really has it in him and with a little more time and experience would be a great prez.

    i’d ignore all the crazy hate mongers that reply..they don’t just have “issues”,they have subsriptions!!!!….

    keep up the good work :)

    • Dean C. Haskins

      That’s right . . . the rule of law is of no import in this country–only how we feel about things does.

      • C.A. Holly

        Agreed, Mr. Haskins. It is quite amazing how many people there are who are of a mind that a mere plurality in the public opinion arena is all that is needed to determine qualifications for the presidency.

  • Expose Unamerican’s

    Mr. Goldberg,
    You once were proudly associated with one of the most prestigious show ever aired. I’m not going to waste more than a minute on you. You used to be world famous. You would have had to be blind and deaf to not know what is going on. People email you hundreds of time a day. You purposely ignored the evidence.

    Instead of resigning from Fox, you chose to disgrace yourself, pretending. Intelligent American’s, the type you rub shoulders with in expensive restaurants, or elsewhere you may be seen in public, will mock you; talk about your being unAmerican, just like O’Reilly, Hannity, Smith, Van Susteren, and many, many more.

    You are no longer the prized journalist you spent a lifetime cultivating. You are now a joke.

  • DOOM161

    What does it matter how anyone defines it? As we learned in 2008, you don’t have to prove citizenship, anyway.

  • jimmy

    Bernie, try BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904), and ditch Wikipedia next time you want to cite a credible source, OK?

    No, you won’t do that will you because, like the slobbering Marginal Media you like to criticize, you are catering to the lowest common denominator. Rupert owns you.

    I wont buy your books any more

  • JDY

    Bernie, ignoring the whole NBC question, you were touting Marco Rubio for the Republican presidential ticket or “they need to get their heads examined.” I say you need to get your head examined.

    Rubio is a freshman senator who has made a life long career of politics but has no executive experience… IOW a Republican Barak Obama. Maybe he would make a fine chief executive, but let him prove it at a lower level like governor before putting him near the most powerful office in the land.

  • Nancye

    I recently discovered Bernie’s website, and have enjoyed reading his columns and the comments made. But yesterday and today has probably cured me of ever coming back. Even when you disagree with someone, do you have to be so rude and hateful? I can’t believe the viciousness some of you have reaped on Mr. Goldberg. Of course he doesn’t need me to take up for him. He’s perfectly capable of doing it himself. The fact is, however, that he’s too polite to let you have it with both barrels. Too bad! Some of you need a tongue-lashing like you’ve given him.

    • Dean C. Haskins

      The only problem is, Nancye, that, in this article, Mr. Goldberg is shooting blanks.

      • obamaisafraud

        I concur with Dean. Mr. Goldberg, I usually enjoy your comments, but Wikipedia?? Someone answer this for me, why does the US Constitution only state “natural born citizen” one time, and that is for requirements to be President. All other times, the reference is merely citizen or native-born citizen. Natural born citizen means child of US parents, at the time of child’s birth! Obama is a Fraud. Goldberg objects to the liberal, corrupt media, why don’t you see that once the truth about Obama is exposed, the corrupt, propaganda machine, formerly known as the American press, will also be exposed for what they are, shills for the liberal agenda! Yes, please wake up Bernie. If obama was born in HI, then why did he fight with $2 million dollars, for 3 years, to not pull out a $10 birth certificate? And since he put out an obviously fraudulent, forged document, he has proven he is fraud! He deserves to not be voted out, but to be taken out in handcuffs! We don’t live in the USA anymore, we live in something more akin to the old USSR! And it makes me very sad to say that. visit http://www.birtherreport.com to get the full scoop on what is happening on exposing Obama for the felonious fraud that he is.

        • Dr. Conspiracy

          Well, I’m forced to agree that the Wikipedia is not a very good authoritative source. Any fool can change the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is a good way to LOCATE authoritative source. Nevertheless the Wikipedia is right, as it usually is, on this point.

          The Constitution generally doesn’t define the terms it uses, including naturalization and natural born. According to the Supreme Court, in Smith v Alabama, the terms should be understood in the light of English Common Law. The courts who have looked at the citizenship issue generally refer for authority to Lord Coke’s commentary on Calvin’s Case for a definition. Coke said that an “alien in amity” (not an occupying army or a foreign ambassador) owes a local allegiance to the laws of England and so his offspring born in England is a “natural born subject.” The child is born under the protection of the Sovereign, and so is a subject. This is cited, for example, by the US Supreme Court in US v Wong.

          Many of the men who wrote the US Constitution were English-trained lawyers. They used the same definitions of natural born citizen that the colonial charters, laws, and early American state laws used. Natural born subjects and citizens where those born in the colony/state without regard for the status of their parents.

          This is settled law. This is how the courts have ruled, most recently by the Court of Appeals in Indiana in the case of Ankeny v Daniels, comment on Obama’s eligibility specifically.

          As for Obama spending $X million hiding his birth certificate, that’s just a myth. The number is ridiculous for three motions to dismiss (Obama only defended 3 of the 70+ lawsuits), and none of them could have been settled with a birth certificate.

          For details on the legal defense question and many others, check out The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            Yeah, one who is on the White House payroll is certainly a credible source of information, Dr. Con.

          • SamSewell

            White House operative heading ‘birther’ smear campaign? Former Fannie Mae chief allegedly manages 100-strong attack team from Pennsylvania Ave NEW YORK – A top Democrat, apparently operating with the full approval and cooperation of the president, has been directing a team of up to 100 who are paid to publish disinformation on a wide variety of websites to discredit “birthers,” according to anti-Obama researchers. The radical supporters of the president, known as Obama robots, or “OBOTs” for short, have confirmed their White House-appointed ring leader is Democratic Party operative James A. Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae. Initially, the…

          • gorefan

            I see Iran is very interested in the Birther movement.

            http://www.ibna.ir/vdcf0xdyvw6dyva.r7iw.html

            Is it possible some in the Birther movement are Iranian agents?

          • Dr. Conspiracy

            White House payroll? I’m a retired software developer. I have no connection with Obama or the White House.

            But if this is the quality of your information, I can understand why you’re a birther.

          • Dr. Conspiracy

            Sam, It must be frightening to live in a world full of operatives trying to discredit you, folks like Fox News.

            First, it makes no sense for the administration to spread disinformation to discredit the birthers, when normal information works just fine (not to mention the fact that birthers pretty much discredit themselves by opening their mouths).

            Your comment about James Johnson seems to come from the tabloid web site WorldNetDaily. Personally, I’ve never heard of Johnson, but there’s no reason I should have. I will be looking into this story, though, because it is a slow news day and I need to find SOMETHING to write about at Obama Conspiracy Theories because real news about birthers has pretty much dried up since Obama released his long form.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            Good try there, Con.

          • C.A. Holly

            The founding fathers were students of history and were well aware of the havoc pretenders and usurpers had brought to kingdoms. It was not uncommon for marriage between royal families of warring countries to be the mechanism for making peace. These arranged marriages often resulted in injurious competing loyalties or outright subversion from the throne itself.

            Unlike Obama, we know a great deal about our founding fathers and their intent. Archives are replete with treatises, correspondence, addresses, etc. where they discussed what kind of man should be president. Obama, sir, is no way the sort of man they envisioned, and in no way can he be construed to be qualified under Article II.

          • gorefan

            C. A. Holly

            “Archives are replete with treatises, correspondence, addresses, etc. where they discussed what kind of man should be president.”

            Excellent, this is exactly what I’ve been trying without success to get from Dean and mario. Can you post links or sources to these documents? can you quote from them?

            And please limit it to people who were alive at the time the Constitution was written, I’m getting tried hearing about so and so from 1875 who believed this or that. I want to know what the Founders andframers thought and wrote.

      • Nancye

        Dean C. Haskins
        July 20, 2011 | 10:08 am

        The only problem is, Nancye, that, in this article, Mr. Goldberg is shooting blanks.

        Ahhhh – but, no one has to be rude like some have been.

        • Dean C. Haskins

          Nancye, I would suggest that such sentiments are merely the result of patriotic Americans who believe the Constitution is worth being defended being summarily dismissed and derided by those in the national media who are proponents of constitutional subversion (oh wait, that was redundant).

          http://www.birthersummit.org

          • Nancye

            Dean: I’ve reread some of your comments and you seem to be one who can disagree without being disagreeable. There is a difference between how you’ve commented and how some of the others have taken Bernie to the woodshed – and for no good reason. IF he has been mistaken about what a natural born citizen is – and I do say IF – there’s no reason to be so rude.

          • SamSewell

            The phrase “self appointed scholars” I took as insulting to those interested in the eligibility issue when many of us have better scholarly credentials than Bernie.

    • Paul Courtney

      Nancye: Indeed! Promoting M. Rubio for VP is not cause for insult. Some folks seem to think we have too many conservative journalists, we can just dump one like ballast.

      • Ron Kean

        Don’t leave us, Nancye.

    • BulganChimeg

      That suande looks fab . I love anything chocolate peanut butter! I have skipped straight to dessert before only if the dessert is HUGE though, or else I’m still hungry!

  • Fletch

    Bernie ~

    Wickiedia?

    Really Bernie???? ….. Wickipedia is your font of knowledge for this claim?

    Who gave you the website your pal Ted Baxter?

  • John D. Iorio

    Hello Sir, I really like you’re style.
    Keep up the fine work.

    John

  • Kevin J

    Bernie,
    Do yourself (and all of us) a huge favor, spend at least 2 hours reading Leo Donofrio’s analysis at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com. In particular his analysis of Minor vs. Happersett. The US Supreme Ct conclusions in that case are binding precedent: “The Court held that Minor was a member of the ‘class’ of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to ‘parents’ (plural) who were citizens.”.

    “The Court also noted that the ‘citizenship’ of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt.”

    Let’s see, who else is in that class? Obama, Rubio, McCain, Chester Arthur and Jindal to bame but a few.

    Having your citizenship status in doubt means you cannot nor will you ever be a natural born citizen. The precedent is law in so much as no case has superseded it.

    Please tell us all why and how this analysis is flawed?

  • Henrick

    Really Bernie, you’re knocking people for not being lawyers yet you’re relying on wikipedia for your info. You know how info ends up on wikipedia? A 19 year old named Seth and a 22 year old named Skyler engage in an editing battle until one of them gets banned by the 20 year old wikipedia mod, Justin.
    Regardless, I’ve seen no definitive proof Barry was even born on the soil. That latest rank forgery they posted was an insult. Not to mention, how did he end up using someone else’s Connecticut-issued social security number? 042-68-4425, check it out. Something’s rotten. You know it. Your bff O’Reilly knows it. Everyone knows it. The problem with you detached old timers is you actually believe black people will go berzerk and burn their neighborhoods down if Barry’s exposed. Ye of so little faith.

    • Trevor

      Poor Bernice, like all Birfooons a fundamental failure to grasp facts. How about the response from the court on the ONLY Birther case to make it past the “laugh at the stupid” level. Ankeny v Indiana on the very issue of the eligibility of the President….quote

      Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

      Want another case, look up Wong Kim Ark

      Tell you what, find ONE single case in the last 100 years, a civics book, a current Constitutional expert, scholar, judge or Supreme Court Justice who agrees with you. Come on, waiting….

      • jimmy

        BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

        You work for James Johnson, don’t you

        • Kaci Jay

          Boyd has no merit in this matter at all as the Plaintiff was not born in the US, therefore would not be a NBC under any circumstances. Pope has to do with Maryland state law and the ability to register as a voter within said state, again not NBC and again not on point.

  • Bob Hadley

    Bernie, You really struck a nerve in the looney Right. I’m tempted to check the lunar phase, if you know what I mean. But the hot air going your way is merely a waft compared to what President Obama gets on a regular basis.

    What has apparently become the New Right espouses that facts you don’t like are really beliefs and opinions, beliefs you hold dear are really facts, anything that supports these beliefs is also fact, specicious reasoning you like is also fact, statements of fact made on some website that you like are really true…….because you like ‘em (the statements of fact, that is) and on and on.

    I think the rigid supply siders created this monster, in large part at least. This crowd makes President Reagan look like a liberal–after all, he raised taxes several times, never proposed a a balanced budget, provided amnesty for illegal aliens, cut and run (from Beruit) when the going got tough….

    • Ron Kean

      I disagree. I think Obama’s had it easy with ‘thrill up the leg’ and ‘…like a God’ references and he’s been given a pass on ‘corpse men’, ’57 states’, et al while Bush, Palin, and Bachmann have been slammed, personally insulted, and truly abused.

      I think the New Right thinks facts are facts and beliefs and opinions are just that. I think the New Right thinks their beliefs and opinions are correct abstract concepts that require implementation as opposed to beliefs and opinions of the Left which the Left wants implemented. Which the Left has implemented and we’ve seen fail.

      The symbols of the New Right are the yellow ‘Tread’ flag, the American flag and the US Constitution. Its foundation rests on Jewish/Christian concepts and Greek ideals. The Left has obvious socialist and communist roots and anti-Biblical standards.

      I remember the Carter/Reagan days. Under Reagan, interest rates plunged from 22% to about 7% and the employment rate climbed high.

      • jimmy

        ….what he said ^

      • Bob Hadley

        Ron, Then apparently you don’t consider yourself part o the New Right. Many time you’re stated non-sense. And many times I’ve given you the facts and have invited you to confirm those facts by yourself. Apparently, you haven’t done so because you keep reciting the same non-sense.

        As for the reagan years, you completely missed my point (again). To the standards of the New Right, Reagan wwas a liberal. Yes, things improved greatly under Reagan, in large part because of pragmatism. But, if Reagan followed his rhetoric (which apparently bamboozled many on the Right), things wouldn’t have turned out nearly so well.

        • Ron Kean

          I always appreciate the kind words, professor.

  • Ron Kean

    Well Bernie,
    At least you have a lot of followers.

  • Timothy L.

    WTF? Where did this come from Bernie? Get off your high horse. You sound like an arrogant pompous windbag who has been denied his arugula. Do not worry.. now you will be held just as accountable as the rest of the mob at Fox for allowing this USURPER to remain in office. Perhaps if y’all had done your job and protected the people…

  • Jim

    Bernie – I’m guessing you teed this one up on purpose to expose this sort of silly dialog. I am also guessing you knew exactly what kind of response it would get. I suspect you even reference Wikipedia just to get a reaction – which you most certainly did. Nice.

    • jimmy

      Yeah, citing USSC decisions is silly dialog, while Wiki is a credible source.

      I’m glad to know Disneyland is alive and well.

      Say hello to James Johnson for me

  • Citizen of Arizona

    You and Bill should get a good education. You are both as dumb and they come. No spin ya sure. And you sir are are an idiot. With people like you and Bill who needs dumbed up TV, you two are like watching dumb and dumber.

  • ER

    Well, what the blog post lacks in truth & grace, the comment thread makes up for — if only Goldberg will take a listen. And though, Mr. Goldberg, you ridiculed those who said “case closed” because Obama’s dad wasn’t a citizen here, it really is that simple.

    • Jim

      Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in London – I guess that rules him out! You sure you don’t want to re-think your position?

      • takion

        Thomas Jefferson, like many other Founding Fathers, was grandfathered into eligibility as they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

        Alexander Hamilton’s proposed Presidential eligibility language requiring only that the President be a citizen, was soundly rejected by Congress in favor of adding the term Natural born citizen.
        This indicates that the two terms certainly have different meanings.

        Since the reason for the eligibility language was to prevent foreign influence upon the Presidency, parentage must also be American in order to prevent dual citizenship.

        This is exactly why the Founding Fathers required Natural born citizenship, instead of just citizenship, which could have also been construed as allowing those born in other countries to become President.

        Natural born citizenship requires both parentage and place of birth, and is determined at the moment of birth.
        No foreign influence allowed.

        Obama is not a Natural born citizen by any stretch of the imagination.

        • gorefan

          “Alexander Hamilton’s proposed Presidential eligibility language requiring only that the President be a citizen, was soundly rejected by Congress in favor of adding the term Natural born citizen.”

          Say What?

          This is historical inaccurate.

          On June 18th, 1787, Hamilton submitted a draft plan to the Constitutional Convention. This plan did not have a Presidential eligiblity clause, mostly because it did not have a President. It had a Governour who served a life term.

          You can read his plan here:
          http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

          At the end of the Convention, Hamilton gave a copy a a draft constitution to James Madison “which, he said, delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention”

          It was this draft constitution that had the “born a citizen” clause for the Presidency. But it was never voted on in the Convention.

          • C.A. Holly

            Re your reply to me above:

            Do your own homework and research, obot! (Is that not what your ilk are always telling Orly Taitz when she solicits help from her supporters?) A line has been drawn in the sand, and whether sooner or later Obama WILL BE exposed for usurper he is. You, like all obots, are on the wrong side of history and for all posterity truthful historians will portray you as the subversives that you are.

          • gorefan

            Yeah, I pretty much figured you were just making stuff up and had not actually done any research into the archives that “are replete with treatises, correspondence, addresses, etc. where they discussed what kind of man should be president.”

            The birthers won’t even be a footnote in history books. Although there may be some mention of them in abnormal psychology textbooks.

        • takion

          Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

          “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
          http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2716838/replies?c=189

          Hence my comment that,
          Alexander Hamilton’s proposed Presidential eligibility language requiring only that the President be a citizen, was soundly rejected by Congress in favor of adding the term Natural born citizen.
          This indicates that the two terms certainly have different meanings.

          Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause was exactly that, not a plan for a Governour who served a life term.

          No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States.
          Isn’t this self-explanatory enough for you?

        • takion

          Since Congress replaced Alexander Hamilton’s proposed Presidential eligibility language requiring only that the President be born a citizen, it is clear that the language was soundly rejected by Congress in favor of adding the term Natural born citizen.
          This indicates that the two terms certainly have different meanings.

          Make sense to you now?
          One who is born a citizen is not necessarily a Natural born citizen.
          No foreign allegiance meant no dual citizenship at birth.
          At a minimum, a U.S. citizen Father is required to be POTUS, as citizenship for the child followed the Father at that time.

          The child of illegal immigrants born in America is a citizen, according to the current erroneous misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, but that child is not a Constitutionally eligible future President of this nation.

          It is amazing that the courts refuse to come right out and say this in plain English.

      • Dean C. Haskins

        Jim, who has EVER said anything about where one’s parents are BORN? The requirement is merely that one’s parents be citizens when one is born.

      • obamaisafraud

        ummm, facts get in the way of your assertion, the constitution allowed for that! “or those citizens at the time of the adoption of this document” Not quoting exactly, only from memory. Please get it right if you’re going to chime in.

  • Ace

    “Natural Born” means no foreign allegiance, including blood.
    What’s so hard to understand about that?
    The whole point is to assure absolutely no foreign ties.
    Obviously, Rubio and Obama are not natural born citizens.

  • Ray

    Bernie,

    When it all comes tumbling down, and trust me it will, you are going to be standing in front of the world with no close on, right there next to BillyO. I had more respect for you than that. You need to get with the program. If you think “NBC Fatigue” is bad, let Obummer get re-elected and when martial law kicks in, you will have a totally different kind of fatigue. Snap To. Leo Donofrio may be a little heavy for you, so just stick with The Post & Email and ObamaReleaseYourRecords to keep you on the streight and narrow.

    All the Best, Buddy

  • Dean C. Haskins

    All in all, Bernie, I still think you have a great eye for graphic design. LOL!

  • lisa c.

    Geez, Bernie, if you’re relying on Wikipedia for your information, you need to get out of the journalism and admit defeat. Everyone with remaining cognitive skills has evidenced the unrelating ‘editing’ on Wikipedia to maintain a ridulous level of deceit. Even Obama’s mother’s CV has been, shall we say, ‘augmented’ to make HER the creator of the micro-loan phenomenon, which must surprise Nobel and other committees. (Not that Nobel has any street cred left.) If you really DO want to understand what is, and what is not, a natural born citizen under our system of law, so far, read the thousands of pages on Leo Donofrio’s website and put in some real investigation. Otherwise, you sound ill-informed and insufficiently interested in doing your homework.

  • Juan Rodriguez

    I think Rubio’s allegiance to the US should not be questioned and I think that is the core issue that needs to be discussed. There is a more stringent requirement on allegiance than natural born and it is applied when one gets a security clearance. I went through the process and both parents need to be naturalized, and if my dad was dead then it would not matter, because they are concerned about allegiance and not citizenship. Rubio has much more allegiance than most to the US. 1. He has no country to return to and probably has never travelled to Cuba. 2. His dad is dead (and I think that is the one cited for not been citizen at birth and not his mom who was citizen). As hard as it is to believe, by the strict ideological definition of some on this board, a terrorist, who is natural born, with more allegiance to another country is more qualified. Does anyone in their right mind think that was the intent of the founders?

    • Dean C. Haskins

      The problem with your idea is that the law is not based on how we feel about things–it is based on what is written. What you have stated has no bearing on the constitutional requirements. What if you were to think that someone shouldn’t have to be 35 years old, or have lived in the country for at least 14 years. Should those parts of the requirement be ignored too?

      • Juan Rodriguez

        I do not think the law is very clear on this topic so I was using common sense. But if you have a law that says both your parents need to be naturalized in order for you to be president, in those words than I will accept your argument. The law should be clear and not subject to interpretation; as the example you cited.

        • Dean C. Haskins

          But the law is not based upon how you think it should be written. Here’s the way it works Juan, the Constitution states that a president must be a natural born Citizen. In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia Minor belonged to a “class” of people who were natural born Citizens because she was born in this country to citizen parents. That is not difficult to understand at all; however, even if it were difficult, it would still be the law. The law is not written “dumbed down” to accommodate those who find it too hard to understand.

          • Paul Courtney

            Dean: You insist Minor is binding precedent on the definition of NBC. Was Virginia Minor running for president? ‘Cause, as other posters point out, NBC only arises in Pres. qualifications. If she wasn’t, then NBC wasn’t at issue and the Court’s use of the term NBC is imprecise at best(Courts do that, you know). Your own posts give us enough info to see that NBC was not an issue before the Court in Minor.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            While “natural born Citizen” is given as a requirement for only the president in the Constitution, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the term only has meaning as it applies to that position. The Framers applied the requirement to the office, not the office to the requirement. Thus, SCOTUS specifically clarifying the definition in its ruling sets the binding precedent, regardless of anything else the case covered.

          • Juan Rodriguez

            I was been trying to be diplomatic. I resent your dump down remarks or your condescending attitude. I was trying to make a point which you failed to comprehend.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            My intention was not to be condescending; however, your post was simply irrelevant as it pertains to the law.

          • Paul Courtney

            As I suspected, your answer reveals your fundamental error, you do not understand “binding precedent”. You seem to grasp the limited gov’t system, so let’s try this- the Minor Court did not have the authority to bind Obama, Rubio, or anyone else not before the Court, because the question “Is Minor qualified to run for Pres” was not before the Court. This is a well-established limit on the jurisdiction of The Court. You may be sincere and well-intentioned, but you are wrong. You don’t seem to grasp that your position amounts to an expansion of the power of a branch of the fed gov’t, not very conservative. You don’t grasp that courts often insert statements in decisions that go beyond the case before it, and the author may even intend to establish precedent, but such statements are not binding. I see from this string that many people take your pronouncements as gospel, maybe they even support you with donations. If you continue based on this demonstrably false notion of “binding precedent”, then who is the fraud?

          • Dean C. Haskins

            The clarification of the definition set forth in the ruling is not limited merely to the case at hand, and therefore, rendered meaningless regarding its use in other instances. It is the Court’s established definition of the term, which, coincidentally, was a term the framer’s used to delineate the constitutional qualifications for the office of president. To assert that such definition of a term that is used for other purposes (not only for deciding a case about suffrage) is null and void when applied in any other arena in which the term is used is ludicrous and absurd.

          • Paul Courtney

            I didn’t assert it was null and void, I said it isn’t binding precedent- putting words in my mouth is a very old ploy. I have explained it to you in terms any conservative will instantly recognize, to no avail. You’ve used this approach, maybe you’ll recognize it- So you favor federal courts with unfettered power to issue “clarifying definitions” on issues not before the court, not argued below, which bind people not in the case, restricting rights (to run for Pres., for instance). Yes, they already do that, but why do you favor it? I prefer to deconstruct the claims of lefties who wander to this site, but you are hurting conservatives with your willful blindness to reality. Unless you get a federal court to uphold your claim, it’s just that-your claim. And you’re welcome to it, but don’t think you’re helping pull this country back from the precipice.

  • Dr. Conspiracy

    My goodness, this is turning into a preview of the Birther Summit! Wow! Apuzzo, Kerchner, Haskins, Turner, Sankey, Booth and our friend from Pravda, Sam Sewell. (Quick Dean, recruit Sam and Neil for the Summit!)

    And someone call Orly Taitz and make it a full house.

    • Dean C. Haskins

      Not quite, Dr. Con. There won’t be any proponents of constitutional subversion like you and your buddy gorefan there.

      • gorefan

        I can certainly understand why you would be afraid to have anyone who knows something about US History attending your knitting circle.

        Any chance we’ll see those Framer quotes saying that “natural born” required jus soli and jus sanguinis anytime soon?

        • Dean C. Haskins

          No, we’d never rely on constitutional subversives to spin their twisted tales about the history that keeps their boss in office. Any chance we’ll see those Framer quotes saying that “natural born” required only jus soli anytime soon?

          • gorefan

            Well there is William Rawle’s statement.

            And of course there is Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court who published, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books” in 1795.

            In what is the first legal treatise published in the United States, Swift wrote, “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.“

  • Dan From Mo

    So now that Bernie has been educated on Natural Born Citizenship requirement for President and Vice President. Bernie can you imagine what it is like to live in a country where the pResident is obviously not qualified and everyone looks the other way…

  • Dr. Conspiracy

    The quotation from Mr. Madison cited in the article was not about the eligibility of the President, but curiously enough, about the qualifications for the US House of Representatives. The debate was over how long a member of the first House had been a citizen. William Smith was born in South Carolina, and orphaned at age 11. He was studying abroad during the American Revolution. Madison argued that Smith was a citizen of the United States because he was born in Carolina, and therefore needed to take no loyalty oath, or to be naturalized.

    The debate over the seating of William Smith, May 12, 1789 makes fascinating reading and it’s available on the Library of Congress web site.

    There were letters to the editor in the Charleston SC newspapers, and one even cited the principle of the law of nations against Smith; however, Smith prevailed in the House and was seated. He served two years.

  • Tom Q

    Wow…Bernie… The only thing that comes to mind is an old saying, ” If you keep your mouth shut people will only think you’re stupid, if you open it you remove all the doubt”. Using Wikipedia as a source reference, who sent you there Bill O’Reilly?

  • Tom D

    Now you’ve done it Bernie, you have brought down the terrible wrath of the Birthers! Wait till you discover the consequences of provoking these patriotic constitutional scholars… actually you’ll just get spammed with meaningless Vattel translations from people who cut-n-pasted it without any context or comprehension ;)

    • Dean C. Haskins

      Quite substantive there, Tom.

  • Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Gorefan,

    William Rawle, in criticizing Locke’s natural law and law of nations definition of citizenship said: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.” William Rawle, A view of the Constitution of the United States of America‎ (2nd ed. 1829).

    But Rawle provides no authority for his definition of what is a “natural born Citizen.” He also recognizes that his is not the only definition of the term, acknowledging that there were other authorities (he mentions Locke) who think differently than he did on the subject. He simply states that his definition is correct and that of others is incorrect. It should be noted that when Rawle rejected the notion that a child could wait until the years of discretion to elect his or her citizenship, he was actually rejecting Vattel’s view expressed on the subject in Section 212. Why should we accept Rawle’s view as the standard for what the Framers believed about what a “natural born Citizen” was? What evidence does Rawle cite to support his conclusion on what is a “natural born Citizen?”

    The problem for Rawle is that the Founder, Framers, or the U.S. Supreme Court (see The Venus, Inglis, Dred Scott, Minor, Wong Kim Ark) did not agree with his criticism of Locke and with his definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Needless to say that the Founders and Framers were greatly influence by the political philosophy of Locke and not by any of Rawle.

    Lock’s consent theory of citizenship is grounded on the premise that individuals are not naturally subject to a sovereign, but rather consent to be governed and subordinate their natural freedom for protection by the government. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Section 129 (Peter Laslett ed., 1988). In solving the problem of birth into an organized society, Locke presented the theory of “tacit consent,” whereby an individual’s consent was implied so long as the individual remained under the government’s protection. Id. at § 118. Nevertheless, Locke did not believe that children could consent to the government under which they were born. Id. He believed that a person could manifest such consent only upon reaching adulthood, at which time a volitional choice could be made. Id.

    This concept of citizenship is not drawn from the English common law but rather from natural law and the law of nations, as codified by Emer de Vattel, in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. In Section 212, Vattel said that “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . .” He added that “children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…[E]ach citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.” We can see that Vattel maintained that a child followed the condition of his parents. Hence, the child had no capacity to acquire any allegiance or citizenship different from that of his or her parents regardless of where he or she was born. Vattel did add that the child was free upon reaching the age of majority to decide whether he or she would keep the citizenship that was given to him or her by his or her parents or join a different society and select that society’s citizenship. So with Locke we can see that the English common law did not influence his ideas on how to define citizenship in a society but Vattel and natural law and the law of nations did.

    The Founders and Framers were influenced by natural law and the law of nations which defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents. They never accepted a definition of a “natural born Citizen” as put forth by Rawle. Rawle’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” is therefore to be rejected as not having any historical or legal basis or support. See also William Ramsay, a founder, physician, and influential revolutionary historian who said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of citizens.

    • Gorefan

      “The problem for Rawle is that the Founder, Framers, or the U.S. Supreme Court (see The Venus, Inglis, Dred Scott, Minor, Wong Kim Ark) did not agree with his criticism of Locke and with his definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

      According to you, on July 4th, 1776, the Founders went from using the English Common Law definition of “natural born” to the Law of Nations/Nature definition of “natural born” Ok, where are the quotes from the Founders that support this?

      If they were making such a fundamental change in such a fundamental concept, they must have written about it. Where are those writings?

      • Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

        Gorefan,

        The historical record is full of evidence that the Founders and Framers went from reliance on the English common law to reliance on natural law and the law of nations when it came to addressing national issues (not issues addressed by the States on the local level). Here is just one example.

        In The Federalist No. 42 (J. Madison), Madison said that because the common law and statutory laws in the states did not provide a uniform standard for defining felonies, with state statutes being impracticable and the English common law being “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide,” the power to make those laws uniform was given to Congress and that to avoid that “the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another” when performing naturalization of aliens and thereby produce inconsistent results among the several states, Congress was given the exclusive power to make those laws uniform. Note that Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” to defining a term that was included in the Constitution. He surely would have thought the same if someone proposed using the English common law, with its feudal, watered-down, and broad notions of allegiance (friendly aliens inhabiting the British dominions were considered “subjects” of the King and naturalized subjects were considered “natural born subjects”) to define a “natural born Citizen,” which was the republican allegiance standard for the President and Commander in Chief of our military power.

    • Dr. Conspiracy

      The two court cases that did sweeping historical analysis of the law and the authorities (Lynch v Clarke (NY 1844) and US v Wong Kim Ark, Supreme Court (1898) agree with Mr. Rawle, who was good buddies with several of the framers, was appointed US Attorney for Pennsylvania by George Washington himself and was a founder of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. Frankly, if I had to choose between Mario Apuzzo and William Rawle, it’s no contest.

      The Illinois court of Appeals and US Supreme Court Justice (retired) Sandra Day O’Connor also agree. The birthers have no clothes on this issue.

      • Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

        My good friend, Dr. Conspiracy,

        Bring William Rawle back from the grave and he and I can debate the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

        Or maybe you can get an Obot lawyer to fill in for Rawle. We can dress up in the garb of the period, and have a lively debate.

        What do you think?

        • Paul Courtney

          Please allow me. I think you’ll win the debate with the dead guy, and will have just as much practical effect as all the birther arguments we see here. Do any of you really believe these efforts will result in Obama’s removal from office because he’s not an NBC? What if your efforts lead, not to his removal, but his re-election in ’12? None of you see it, but this reminds me of the “selected not elected” folks who still expect to have Bush’s election somehow rendered null & void. You’re all so convinced you’re right, have you noticed that you are “swinging, and no chips are flying” (Gregory Peck, TWELVE O’CLOCK HIGH, 1943)? There are so many reasons, upon which we can all agree, to put Obama out the traditional way-vote him out!

          • Dean C. Haskins

            But, there are far more reasons to have him removed–not only for his ineligibility, but for the multiple felonious frauds he has committed.

          • gorefan

            “for the multiple felonious frauds he has committed.”

            Hahahahahahahaha

            Provide some evidence before you accuse someone. That is tha American/Constitutional way. I know doing i that way doesn’t interest you.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            He personally supplied the evidence on April 27, 2011.

          • gorefan

            Not acording to a real computer expert.

            “President Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate: Conclusion”

            “The changes made to the original document by OCR software and image optimization have rendered it impossible to determine whether these inconsistencies are due to manual tampering, or are simply the result of the optimization and scanning process.”

            http://www.decodedscience.com/birth-certificate-debate-caused-by-ocr-software-and-digital-optimization/1939

          • Dean C. Haskins

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LOL!!!!!!

          • gorefan

            Or we could use the birther expert Douglas Vogt.

            http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0930808045/vortexmapscom-20

            Now that is something to laugh about.

  • jeff u
  • Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Bernie and relaxbettysuela,

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides “natural born Citizen” and “citizen” of the United States as two separate tests for eligibility. These are separate and distinct terms which must be given their own meaning. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President. Hence, the issue with Obama is whether he is a “natural born Citizen,” not whether he is a “citizen” of the United States.

    Madison was speaking in 1789 about being a “citizen” of the United States which was the status needed for eligibility to be a Congressman under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. We know from Article II itself that such a “citizen” is not necessarily a “natural born Citizen.” The only issue that the Congress debated and decided was whether Smith had been a “citizen” of the United States for 7 years which is the requirement of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for anyone wanting to be a Representative. The debate was not whether Smith was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” At that time, no adult in being of the Founding generation was a “natural born Citizen.” Reliance upon Madison’s quote for a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is therefore misplaced.

  • CDR Kerchner Ret.
    • jeff u

      Neither is Barak Obama. Add forgery to the list of fraud charges! Why does the McCain Resolution NOT apply to Obama???

  • Miki Booth

    All this aside, Bernie, go to whitehouse.gov site and look at Obama’s long-form birth certificate posted there. Look at Alvin T. Onaka’s stamp and see if you see the smiley face in the “A” of Alvin. Then look at the word “THE” misspelled “TXE” this is a blatant F***You to birthers. They know Obama will never be called out because of people like you drinking progressive’s Kool-Aid and doing their yeoman’s work.

    • gorefan

      Or this is just do to low resolution image.

      Let’s ask a real computer expert

      “President Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate: Conclusion”

      “The changes made to the original document by OCR software and image optimization have rendered it impossible to determine whether these inconsistencies are due to manual tampering, or are simply the result of the optimization and scanning process.”

      http://www.decodedscience.com/birth-certificate-debate-caused-by-ocr-software-and-digital-optimization/1939

      Let’s see that statement again.

      “impossible to determine whether these inconsistencies are due to manual tampering, or are simply the result of the optimization and scanning process.”

      Impossible to determine.

  • A Lawyer

    Bernie,

    Your fact-checker on the Madison quote failed you.

    Madison’s comment was in the context of the eligibility of a member of Congress. Under the Constitution, a member of Congress need only be a “citizen” to qualify.

    A president must be not just a “citizen” like members of Congress, but a “natural born citizen.” The question is what do the additional words “natural born” mean here. Madison’s comment simply isn’t relevant to this question.

    The Supreme Court has never comprehensively defined the parameters of the term “natural born citizen” as used in the Presidential Eligibility Clause. My own view is that had the court addressed it early on, it might well have defined it to require citizen parents. A modern court would probably either require only birthright citizenship, such that even anchor babies of illegals would qualify, if the decision were by a liberal majority, or require that the parents at least be permanent legal residents and not present in violation of our laws, if the decision were by a conservative majority. At this point, it is an academic question.

    I enjoy your books, columns and TV appearances, keep up the good work Bernie.

  • William Lolli

    Marco Rubio is without doubt the darling child on the 2012 horizon. He is conservative, smart, articulate, principled, and can handle himself with senatorial equanimity in and out of a debate environment.

    As has been pointed out elsewhere on the internet, Marco Rubio, born on US soil in 1971, was born to foreign [Cuban exile] parents. Marco’s father Mario did not apply for Naturalized Citizenship until 1975, four years after Marco was born. Thus, without two citizen parents, Marco Rubio is not Natural Born. Marco Rubio is a citizen, for certain, as the 14th Amendment and elsewhere are clear about the positive law process of naturalization-at-birth for children born on the soil; but Natural Born, he is not.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and the Wong Kim Ark cases are clear: 1) there is a difference between naturalized at birth (Wong Kim Ark) and natural born Minor v Happersett.

    If this were NOT true, then naturalized citizens would be able to be president, since English Common Law makes no distinction between naturalized and natural born, but American Common Law does. We are citizens, not subjects.

    • gorefan

      “If this were NOT true, then naturalized citizens would be able to be president, since English Common Law makes no distinction between naturalized and natural born, but American Common Law does. We are citizens, not subjects.”

      No, William, this is not true. English Common Law says that the aliens born in the realm are “natural born subjects”. Later, English statutory laws were passed that gave children of British subjects outside the realm “natural born subject” status.

      Here is what Blackstone wrote,

      “But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

  • gmiller

    Hmmm, didn’t you ever hear of Minor v. Happersett, or De Vattel’s Law of Nations, etc.?

  • 1994gls

    Wikipedia?
    Why not Media Matters.org or Snopes?

  • Miki Booth

    Bernie,
    I was a huge fan of yours but have lost every bit of respect I had for you. You know nothing of what you speak here. It’s like you jumped into a shark tank without even knowing how to swim. But keep it up. I’m enjoying seeing you get your ass burned and any minute now gorefan’s head will explode.

    • Ron Kean

      It doesn’t sound like you were ever a huge fan.

  • Sam Sewell

    Bernie, I like you so this is not an insult. Sometimes a self appointed scholar is better than an uninfomed journalist.

    Sam Sewell, PhD

  • Sam Sewell

    Bernie, please read this. No self appointed scholar this time: Dr. Edwin Vieira

    Why Obama cannot be impeached by Devvy Kidd

    Full article here:
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-ineligibility-devvy-kidd-say-it.html

    Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.

    Let me quote Dr. Edwin Vieira, who wrote about this back in December 2008 before Obama was “sworn” into office:

    If Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

    If Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President,” he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

    Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

    If Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4).

    For those who think Dr. Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D., is just some run-of-the-mill attorney, let me give you a very condensed bio: He holds four degrees from Harvard. For more than 30 years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States, he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Communications Workers of America v. Beck. His two volume tome, “Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution,” is the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.

    Let me quote Dr. Edwin Vieira, who wrote about this back in December 2008 before Obama was “sworn” into office:

    If Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

    If Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President,” he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

    Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

    If Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4).

    For those who think Dr. Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D., is just some run-of-the-mill attorney, let me give you a very condensed bio: He holds four degrees from Harvard. For more than 30 years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States, he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Communications Workers of America v. Beck. His two volume tome, “Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution,” is the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.

    • gorefan

      Funny, Dr. Vieira is only interested in whether or not the President was born in the United States. He doesn’t mention two citizen parents or Vattel at all. Even though it was common knowledge in October, 2008 when he wrote this piece that the President’s father was not an American citizen.

      The LFBC solved that issue.

  • Mark Yacavone, Phx.

    Bernie, I’m very disappointed in your stance on this. I always enjoyed your commentary on media bias, but you are wrong on the intent of the framers. See the example here about the King of England.
    The next time you are on O’ Reilly, please ask him why he lied to all of us on Obama’s Connecticut birth certificate.
    Thanks

  • Joe G.

    Hey Bernie,

    If the Natural Born Citizen Clause in the US Constitution is no big deal, then why, oh why, was John McCain required to be vetted with SR 511?…. Hmmmmm?

  • Vince Ricardo

    Wikipedia? Raptor Jesus protect us.

  • rxsid

    Bernie…ask yourself this one question:

    Can a “natural born Citizen” as known and intended by the framers, be born with foreign citizenship and thus
    foreign allegiance owed?

    A citizen can, sure…but can a “natural born Citizen?” Remember, the framers made a distinction between the
    two in the requirements for office:

    President & Commander in Chief – 35 years old, 14 years resident, “natural born Citizen” (post grandfather clause)
    Senate – 30 years old, 9 years a citizen, “citizen”
    House – 25 years old, 7 years a citizen, “citizen”

    With foreign citizenship, comes foreign allegiance owed:

    Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
    7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

    (e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a
    matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S.
    Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in
    the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

    the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a
    person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of
    both.” See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

    And this…

    US State Department Services Dual Nationality

    … The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy
    because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict
    with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country
    where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

    However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required
    to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person
    later travels there…http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

    If place of birth were the only requirement, the King of England could have impregnated a U.S. citizen who,
    after giving birth to the child in the U.S., gone back to England and raised the kid there…at age 21, their son
    could then go back to the U.S. and reside here for 14 years…and have been eligible to the office of the
    Commander in Chief all the while being in line to the British throne. The mere notion of such a person being
    eligible would have been offensive to the founders.
    That’s a heightened example of the problems associated with dual allegiance owed from dual nationals.

    More people care about this issue, Bernie, than you may know or care to know. We are awakening to the
    history.

    • Gorefan

      A 25 year old Englishman comes to the Massachusett in 1784. After two years, he takes an oath and because a citizen of Massachusetts with all the rights of a “natural born subject”(yes, that is the term Massachusett used).

      Would this foreign born man be eligible to be President after 1798 under the “grandfather clause”?

      Even though the he is still an English subject by their laws?

  • Gorefan

    Since you are mentioning members of the Founding generation, you may want to include William Rawle.

    In his “A View of the ConstituTion”, he writes:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

    William Rawle was appointed as United States district attorney in Pennsylvania by President Washington.

    • Dean C. Haskins

      I don’t recall anyone speaking of the “Founding generation,” but of the Founding Fathers themselves. Nothing Rawle wrote carries any weight, legally or principally, since so many of the Founding Fathers repudiated his notion of “natural born Citizen.” Again, it doesn’t really matter what any of them said, for the Constitution, and not their extemporaneous writings, is the law; additionally, since the Supreme Court set the definition in the binding precedent of Minor v. Happersett, any person’s opinion, be they historic or contemporary, has no bearing on the law.

      • Gorefan

        You can say it’s precedent but that doesn’t make it so. It is still just dicta.

        The question was never whether Minor was a citizen but whether she had a right to vote. You can remove the entire sentence of the opinion that talks about “natural born” and the decision is not affected.

        • Dean C. Haskins

          Whether we agree on that or not (which, we don’t), are you one who ignorantly states that, historically, the understanding of NBC has been one who was simply born here? If that is the case, then the Supreme Court of 1875 must have been a bunch of lunatic birthers–precedent or dicta.

          • Gorefan

            I quoted from Rawle to show what the understanding of the term “natural born” was to those alive at the time the Constitution was written. Here is another voice from that time.

            In 1795, Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court published, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books”

            In what is the first legal treatise published in the United States, Swift wrote, “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens. “

            This was the understanding of people not at the Constitutional Convention. So according to you, the Framers changed the meaning of the term “natural born” but neglected to tell anyone or even to write the new definition down anywhere.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            I don’t see any way to reply to you now, but are you familiar with John Bingham (the chief architect of the 14th Amendment)? He certainly knew what the definition of NBC was.

          • gorefan

            Was John Bingham alive in 1787?

      • gorefan

        “since so many of the Founding Fathers repudiated his notion of “natural born Citizen.””

        How about a few quotes?

        • Dean C. Haskins

          So, Rep. Bingham was just a crazed conspiracy theorist nutjob 19th century birther–since you believe the historic understanding of NBC was simply born in the country?

          • gorefan

            That was the Founders and Framers understanding of the term. So are you going to provide some quotes from the Founders or the Framers that dispute that. Come on Dean, go get Dr. Ramsay.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            Please provide statements from any of the founders/framers that substantiates your erroneous assertion that their understanding was “born in the country” only.

          • Gorefan

            I asked you first.

            But let’s look at the term “natural born” as it was understood by the Founders before July 4th, 1776.

            The Calvin’s Case (1608)
            “Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, ….for he owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject”

            The Georgia Charter of 1732
            “Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions”

            William Blackstone, Commentaries of the Laws of England,

            “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

            The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October, 1774

            “That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS: ”

            1) skip
            2) Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England.
            3) skip
            4) skip
            5) Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law. ”

            So their understanding of the term “natural born” was the English Common Law definition.
            We know they used Blackstone’s Commentaries at the Constitutional Convention.

            “Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite. ” James Madison, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, August 29, 1787

          • Dean C. Haskins

            We’re not subjects, and you quoted no Framer.

          • gorefan

            “We’re not subjects”

            Be sure to let John Adams know.

            Constitution of Massachusett (1780 drafted by John Adams)

            “Art. XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws”

            “Art. XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or no offence until the same if fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him…..very subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him”

            And you better let the people of Vermont know.

            Vermont Constitution of 1786

            “SECTION XXXVI. Every [foreigner] person, of good character, who comes to settle in this State, …and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State”

            And the Delaware State legislature

            “A Supplementary ACT to the act, intituled, An act for naturalization,

            “WHEREAS for the encouragement of aliens or foreigners already settled, or that may hereafter come to settle within this state, it is become necessary, since the change of government,…. enabling them to enjoy the rights and privileges of natural-born subjects of this state”
            June 11th, 1788

          • Dean C. Haskins

            We’re talking about the Constitution here, not state charters and such. Under the federal authority of the Constitution, we are not subjects, but citizens.

  • Sally Hill

    Wikipedia? Really?

    While I no longer take you or O’Reilly seriously, if you want to try and ‘appear’ serious about the subject, how about citing some court cases. If you need help, skip on over to Leo Donofrio’s website and he can educate you – WITHOUT using Wikipedia – he uses real federal court precedent to talk intelligently about the issue.

    I thought you were a joke before, and after using Wikipedia as your ‘source’ – I’ve no doubt about it anymore. LOL

  • Paul Courtney

    Bernie: Congratulations, you seem to have brought together the entire membership of the Committee for Impractical Solutions to Non-Problems (CISNP). Neil Turner has discovered that Congress has no power to pass laws not conforming to the Law of Nations, others invent their own theory, some scholars cite an 1875 SCOTUS decision, all ignoring lower court decisions finding, essentially, “born here=NBC”, ignoring that these decisions are followed by every law enforcement agency in the country every day in every way. I’ll bet even Sheriff Joe recognizes that a child born here, even to an illegal, is a US citizen. One may not agree, but such opinions have the same legal effect as the sound of a tree falling in the forest, without the tree. And if Marco runs and wins, no federal court will throw him out based on the claim that his Dad wasn’t a citizen, anymore than Obama. Folks, I’m a fellow con, I’m begging you, stop kidding yourself with these useless arguments- Obama is Pres until 2012, and will win again if you keep your head in the sand.

  • Bob1943

    Thanks Betty Sue, great reply.

    The same people that blow off the Constitutional requirements to be president as “a distraction” also don’t care about a certifiably fake, by many experts in the field of graphics, long-form birth certificate, every record form Obama’s past being sealed from view, having an apparently stolen SS number, being buddies with known and unrepentant terrorist, having several name changes along the way with no documentation to back up any of them, etc., etc.,. Obama is a fraud from the get-go and even Bernie and O’Reilly know it, but for whatever reason, “they’ve got their story and they are sticking to it”, and the mountain of evidence Obama is a fraud and a usurper just doesn’t exist to them.

    If it were anyone but Obama the threshold for an independent investigation for just who is this Barry guy would have been passed a couple of years ago.

    Hey Bernie, check out whether Obama when through and passed a background screening to get his security clearance…or was it just given to him?

    When there is so much legitimate evidence of criminality why would anyone protect the criminal “president” from being investigated?

  • MadeinAmerica

    Bernie, referencing Wikipedia is laughable! After all, anyone can add (and alter) information on the site. Furthermore, anyone who has an ounce of ‘detective’ in them knows fully well that the characters who run the website are cozy with Obama. This issue is NOT going away. Never will. In fact, many on the Left have awakened to the nightmare which has befallen our nation in not only failing to vet the imposter in the White House, but the countless criminal acts linked to him, including using a phony Social Security number for the last 25 years. Oh, and Congress attempted to change the ‘natural-born’ requirements to run for President no less than 8 times since 2003. Remember, the first ‘birthers’ were Democrats, who pulled a bait-and-switch by making John McCain the guinea pig. Changing the subject doesn’t change the fact that Obama is hiding his past from the public nor does it change the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen, which disqualifies him from being President of the United States of America. Congress knows this, the Supreme Court knows it, the media knows it, the people know it. Justice Clarence Thomas stated they are avoiding this issue. Ever wonder why? Congress fears backlash from citizens, and especially the black community, if this issue is blown wide open. Ridiculing and mocking comes from those who fear the truth. The longer this issue is avoided, the angrier Americans become, and rightfully so. The truth has no agenda, Bernie.

    • luchadora

      Bernie, dude, get your facts straight and quit making excuses and trying to change our Constitution. It’s because of people like you that we are where we are today. I say we go back to basics. Made In America.

  • BettySueLA

    For the love of God…when you see how fast our country is being flushed down the toilet…all you have to do is read this junk from Bernie Goldberg to see why. For once, I wish these illegitimate “journalists” would actually do some research on the issues they claim to be “experts” on, instead of vomiting crap from Wiki, which is just plain pathetic.

    I have studied this issue for three years, and I know for a fact Obama is not legit. The first “birthers” were the Clintons, as a reminder. Obama is a fraud, and he’s destroying our country. Some of us choose to stand up, do our homework, observe and obey our laws and Constitution, and others like Bernie and the idiots who know nothing about Obama’s eligibility, prefer to allow a fraud to stand, criminal activity to go unchallenged, and our country to be destroyed. If Bernie had a brain, he would think about WHY the Natural Born Citizen exists….The forefathers KNEW that a foreign national, like Obama, who was born a British Citizen at birth, adopted in Indonesia, etc., who has NO loyalty or love of America, could usurp the Presidency. They KNEW someone like Obama would come along. They tried to prevent it with our laws, but sadly we have become a lawless nation, destroyed by OUR OWN.

    I notice that Neil Turner and Dean Haskins have refuted this article of ignorance by Bernie with TRUTH AND FACTS. Bernie, do yourself a favor…READ the Constitution, the Supreme Court decisions, Vattel’s Law of Nations, etc. And TRY to be American would you? Or move to Cuba where you will get the government you deserve.

    • KNap

      Fantastic response.

      • CCNV

        BettySue,

        What are you DOING about this? Are you DOING anything other than reading and gathering facts, and if so, WHAT? Are you filing lawsuits? Are you organizing a march on DC? Tell us so we can DO what you DO!

        • Dean C. Haskins

          Believe me, BettySueLA is doing a LOT!

          Dean C. Haskins
          Executive Director, The Birther Summit
          http://www.birthersummit.org

        • BettySueLA

          CCNV…I have done more than most people, other than Dean who is really our hero in the movement to evict the Criminal in Chief. You can attend the Birther Summit, call your reps, and tell them that you are American and in America we obey the laws. Since they have no idea what the laws ARE, and none of them have read the laws or Constitution, you might have to treat them like the clueless jerks they are and explain it. I can’t believe we pay people to sit in their jobs who either have no idea what they are talking about, or are lying for Obama for political expediency. One way or another, it will be dealt with. There are some of us who will die our last breath pushing this issue and we WILL make sure that the history books are not kind to Obama and tell the truth about him.

    • Paul Courtney

      Betty Sue, you have already wasted 3 years, if Neil and Dean are right then why are children born to illegals citizens? Read Art I S. 8 yourself and tell Neil that it doesn’t even come close to what he says.

      • Sally Hill

        You seem not to understand the difference in ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’…perhaps you think they are the same thing, while they are not.

        Although the 14th amendment was not designed to give children of illegals citizenship, that is how the Dems choose to ‘interpret’ that amendment. So, yes, while the 14th makes children of illegals, US Citizens, it does NOT make them Natural Born Citizens.

        Rubio is not qualified to be POTUS or V-POTUS, as much as I hate to say it, because I absolutely love Rubio and his political views. Rubio not being eligible has nothing to do with Obama not being eligible as Beanhead Bernie thinks. It has to do with Rubio not being qualified. If Obama is not qualified that’s a separate issue and one for the country to address.

      • BettySueLA

        Paul, do you READ? No offense, but people like you are WHY we have Obama and the pathetic government we have. You are NOT describing “Natural Born Citizens.” You are describing “Citizens.” There is one person, and one person ONLY that, per the Constitution has to be NATURAL BORN and that is the PRESIDENT. Why is it so hard for people like you to actually READ? Can you at least TRY to educate yourself? It’s not that hard if you will just READ the information on this thread, and stop quoting Moveon.org talking points. Good lord, this country has been dumbed down to sheer idiocy.

        • Paul Courtney

          Both of you are correct, I didn’t distinguish between “citizen” and NBC. You are both correct that the Constitution does draw a distinction, and I’ve read the whole string, some are very interesting and articulate on both sides of defining NBC. I’ve also read the newspaper today, and get the impression that Obama still sits in the Oval Office, signs bills, issues orders, commands the armed forces, and has the full support of that newspaper to do it ’til at least 2016. I’ve read enough to conclude that the fed courts won’t throw Obama out and would also honor Rubio’s election if it came to that. No offense taken, people like me who vote and honor the outcome of elections won by the other guy are why we have Obama, and had Bush, and Reagan and Lincoln and…well, you get it. Is there a point where you would concede that your argument is immaterial?

          • Dean C. Haskins

            The short answer is “No.” The Constitution is never immaterial–and we are going to work to change the idiotic perception in this country that it is.

          • jimmy

            Paul, thanks for your enlightening comments.

            Of course we all honor the outcome of elections, regardless of our preference in the matter (or the constitutionality of it).

            And of course we will grow up, stand tall and honor the results of the presidential election of 2008, even if we don’t like the results, but only after we can also agree that the results of a referendum, passed in a popular election of some future, unspecified date, that required that all US citizens or residents of Irish descent be required to live and work and be quarantined within the confines of potato farms, would be valid.

            The result of such a referendum is obviously valid, isn’t it, just as long as it survived the test of a popular vote. Yes, I see your point.

    • luchadora

      Betty Sue, I agree with you! Woohoo! Lol.

  • Jeff Lichter

    Bernie,

    Why did the founding fathers insert the “grandfather clause” into Article II, Section I, Clause 5 if they wanted place of birth to trump parentage? Most, if not all, of the founders were born here and there would have been no need for that clause if they weren’t concerned about parentage, dual citizenship, and allegiance to another country via parentage, being a subject of another country etc.

    Also, why did the US Senate say in Senate Resolution 511 dated 4-30-08 that John McCain was being declared a natural born citizen because” he was born on a United States military base in Panama to American citizen parents (plural)”. They applied the parentage qualifier to him but no one has applied it to Obama. Why?

  • NEIL TURNER

    Bernie, Bernie, Bernie;

    Your smarmy and ‘learned’ words bear no resemblance to the truth, for the truth of the matter is that:

    – The Constitution does define the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ – in Article 1, Section 8 wherein it says that Congress shall make all laws in accordance with the Law of Nations, and the Law of Nations (Section 212) says that ‘natural born Citizens are those born on the soil of parents who are themselves Citizens (of that soil);

    – The Supreme Court, in Minor vs. Happersett, has also ruled specifically that a ‘natural born Citizen’ is one born on the soil of parents who are themselves Citizens;

    – Anyone who quotes ‘Wikipedia’ as a resource for such a weighty decision concerning the Constitutionality of the a person seeking the Offices of President (or Vice President – see the last sentence of the 12th Amendment) is an ill-informed and uneducated fool;

    – Anyone who accepts that blatantly forged Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth that the usurper posted on our White House website (that’s our White House, Bernie, not the usurper’s) as proof of anything other than an act of Treason is far dumber than a 5th Grader, for a 5th Grader can see that it is a forgery in an instant;

    – And anyone in the media who does not publicly expose this act of Treason becomes him or her-self complicit in aiding and abetting Treason, or at the least, in Misprision of Felony Treason;

    And now, Bernie, knowing now what you should have known before (you’ve been talking too much to Bill O’Bama O’Reilly), I hope you will stop beating the dead horse of Treason, stand up for our Constitution, and stop promoting constitutionally ineligible candidates for President or Vice President, lest you, too, be charged with Treason!

  • Bruce A.

    Bernie.
    Why do you post an article like this, guaranteed to bring out the birthers, constitutional scholars, etc. so close to a full moon?

  • GaryW

    Oh Bernie…BTW…what is a native born citizen?

  • Miki Booth

    In a letter to George Washington from John Jay at the time of writing the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Jay writes, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise or seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural bon Citizen.”

    Marco Rubio is awesome and had his father and mother applied for and earned citizenship before Rubio was born instead of 4 years after he was born, (as is the case with his father) I would be begging him to run for president.

    • Gorefan

      Where in Jay’s letter does he define the term “natural born”?

  • GaryW

    Not only is Obama not a Natural Born Citizen…he is a CAREER CRIMINAL. How about checking into that Bernie? It’s all out there for those who are intellectually honest. I suggest you look at the phony birth certificate, the forged back dated selective service registration and Obama’s numerous SSNs for starters.. Come on Bernie you can do it!…or are you just another dishonest media hack covering Obama’s ineligibility along with your buddy Bill “we’re absolutely not looking out for you” O’Reilly? Your NBC dissertation is pathetic. RUBIO and JINDAL not NBCs.

  • NEIL SANKEY

    What is up, why you got fatigue , beginning to realize how WRONG you are Mr. Goldberg?

  • NEIL TURNER

    Bernie, Bernie, Bernie;

    Your smarmy and ‘learned’ words bear no resemblance to the truth, for the truth of the matter is that:

  • Dusty Rhodes

    You’re right on, again, Bernie. Rubio is absolutely terrific.

  • Dean C. Haskins

    Mr. Goldberg, I am in a bit of quandary right now. I see that you have lifted a graphic from a video I produced entitled, “Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.” Since you neither attributed the graphic to me, nor did you give your readers an opportunity to view the video, please allow me to provide the link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJdN2KPf0g.

    It is also quite apparent that you actually never watched it, for if you had, you would have realized that whether or not the term “natural born Citizen” is defined within the Constitution (it isn’t a dictionary), that issue is irrelevant, as the Supreme Court set a binding precedent in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett, in which they ruled that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen because she was born in this country to two citizen parents. The “It’s-not-defined-in-the-Constitution” is an intellectual copout, as there is ample historic evidence for the framers’ intent, and SCOTUS set the definition as binding precedent, which has never been overturned. Minor v. Happersett is the only case in which SCOTUS construed Article II, section 1, and thus, it is the law of the land.

    Dean C. Haskins
    Executive Director, The Birther Summit
    http://www.birthersummit.org

    • Bernie

      Mr. Haskins

      I used the graphic because I thought it was both clever and graphically interesting. And no, I never watched the video. If you want me to take it down, just say the word. No harm intended.

      Bernie Goldberg

      • Dean C. Haskins

        Actually, no, Bernie, I’d rather you just watch it.

  • Dean C. Haskins

    Mr. Goldberg, I am in a bit of quandary right now. I see that you have lifted a graphic from a video I produced entitled, “Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.” Since you neither attributed the graphic to me, nor did you give your readers an opportunity to view the video, please allow me to provide the link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJdN2KPf0g.

    It is also quite apparent that you actually never watched it, for if you had, you would have realized that whether or not the term “natural born Citizen” is defined within the Constitution (it isn’t a dictionary), that issue is irrelevant, as the Supreme Court set a binding precedent in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett, in which they ruled that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen because she was born in this country to two citizen parents. The “It’s-not-defined-in-the-Constitution” is an intellectual copout, as there is ample historic evidence for the framers’ intent, and SCOTUS set the definition as binding precedent, which has never been overturned. Minor v. Happersett is the only case in which SCOTUS construed Article II, section 1, and thus, it is the law of the land.

  • Shirl

    I agree Bernie. Senator Rubio does not mince his words; goes right to the heart of the matter. He truly cares about the health of our great country and is truly worried about the direction currently being taken by the socialist democrats and Obama. I think the reason the democrats don’t want a balanced budget is because the American people can finally see where our money is really going and they will have to be accountable to us for a change.

  • John

    Bernie, I agree with you. But this may all be moot. About a week ago Senator Rubio was on Greta Van Susteren’s program, and she mentioned that many people have been predicting for several months that Rubio would be asked to be the running mate of the 2012 GOP candidate (no matter who wins the primary), and Rubio was pretty adamant in saying that he would be honored, but would definitely decline.

    • Ron Kean

      I can’t argue that Rubio would be a great choice. But for some time now I’ve been replying to John Bolton’s tweets saying HE should be vice president. Too bad he can’t deliver a constituency.

  • Greg Goss

    The term “natural born Citizen” first appeared in the book “Law of Nations” written Vattel. Vattel also was a professor of Law in William & Mary College attended by many of our founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson. The term was considered common knowledge of that time. But further explanation can be taken from the Congressional records of 37th congress 2nd session where John Bingham, “father of the 14th Amendment”, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

    The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

    The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

    “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

    And there Supreme court cases that also reaffirm that meaning, Minor v Happersett being one. So as you can see there is plenty of definition as to the term and why it was inserted for the CIC. You don’t need to be a lawyer…

    • Gorefan

      Well, this is bizarre.

      Vattel died in 1767 and never set foot in America.

      • Dean C. Haskins

        Please explain how that comment makes any sense at all, in light of the fact that the Supreme Court established the definition of natural born Citizen to be “one who is born in this country to citizen parents” in 1875.

        • Gorefan

          I was replying to Greg Gross’s comment that Vattel taught at William and Mary College. That what is bizarre. Or do you agree with him?

          • Dean C. Haskins

            No, I don’t agree with him. I think he was referring to Law of Nations being a textbook at William and Mary.

          • Gorefan

            So was Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws fo England.

            “To fulfill his vision of training lawyers who would exercise public virtue, Jefferson turned to his old friend and mentor, George Wythe. The William and Mary law school was born with a singular vision of training lawyers who would help the new nation successfully complete its remarkable experiment in self-government.”

            “Wythe began teaching law at the College in January 1780. His students learned the nuances of the English common law, relying in significant measure on Blackstone’s Commentaries.”

            http://law.wm.edu/about/ourhistory/index.php

        • Sterngard Friegen

          Can Mr. Haskins quote from the language of the holding in Minor that states this position? I ask because, after practicing law for 40 years, I can’t find it. Obviously Mr. Haskins and I are looking at two different opinions and I would appreciate his expert guidance.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            “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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “

          • gorefan

            So to paraphrase Justice Waite

            Brithers and Obots both agree that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. But Obots go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class Birthers have doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, the court is not going to decide who is right.

          • Dean C. Haskins

            I guess you took “Paraphrasing for third graders.” Citizen does not equal natural born Citizen, otherwise, the framers would have never used the term. However, they did only require senators and congressmen to be just citizens.

          • Gorefan

            The sentence “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’ is meaningless to the opinion.

            obiter dicta: (oh-bitter dick-tah) n. remarks of a judge which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts. Generally, obiter dicta is simply dicta.

    • Trevor

      Really Greg,

      Does your “back of the little yellow bus” thesis on Vattel also inlude the statement form Vattel in the very next stanza of his OPINIONS on cotizenship.

      This is where he states that his OPONION does not count in other countries, specifically stating England where place of birth is the criteria not parental citizenship.

      Ohhhh, burn and fail again.

  • Steve Phillips

    Bernard,I voted for Marco and campaign for him,so my agenda is to the constitution and the laws of this great nation,about Wikipedia,they know nothing of the laws this nation,you need to do a little more research.
    I suppose you think that BHO’s so call birth certificate is real,too.You and Bill,are on the same ridiculous page.Go to Bill’s email I sent him 50 pages,of prove that this president is criminal and all of the congress and all of the media,including FOX are covering for the president,if you are not covering for him, then make this president produce a certified BC that can be verified independent from the gov’t,you can’t because it DOES NOT exist,and you and fox know it.One more question why did he seal his records,is your records seal,no one has their records sealed and $1m to keep them sealed unless you have something to hide,last,you have to have two(2) Us citizen parents at time of birth,no matter where you are born,BHO DOES NOT have that.Look forward to your response.SR 511,bye the way the supreme count has take it up.

    • Trevor

      Steve,

      Your Birther crap in one hand and a certified birth certificate from the State of Hawai’i. Guess which one the court looks at?

      Suggest you read the REAL Constitution before commenting not the imaginary one you and yiur wish for. Lets start with Article IV Section 1 shall we

      “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

      So, the state of Hawai’i issues a BC, that’s it end of story it’s a BC and Birfoons can squat on a sharp spike.

      Guess what, your organ of choice WND, has a member of staff on the White House Press Corp and, Kinsolving and he was there at the release of the second BC. Curiously enough he hasn’t stated ANYTHING was wrong with the BC he got to see and hold. Wonder why Farah and Corsi neglect to mention that little item..?

      “Sealed records”, you mean the Executive Order that REMOVED many of the restrictions on the publication of Presidential Reciords that Bubba the Shrub had enacted. Rememebr these are fior PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS as in records during the Presidency not for records BEFORE the President took office. You really are terminally stupid.
      As for yiur crap about “2 US citizen parents” show one single sucessful lawsuit, civics book, Constitutional scholar, Supreme Court ruling or justice that agrees with you.

      Tell you what, look back over the last hundred years and show us all your wonderous knowledge of the law, the Constitution and history.

  • Nancye

    I hope the GOP ticket is Perry/Rubio and I’ll vote for it in a heartbeat. Herm’s been my man but with that ticket, I could change my mind.

    • david7134

      Be careful. I got the word from a guy in Texas that Perry is a RINO. He apparently headed Gore’s election efforts in the state. Also, he is mostly talk and little action according to the citizens of the state.

      • Vince Ricardo

        Believe me, we (conservative) citizens of Texas crack up when we hear talk about Gov. Perry as the Conservative Superhero waiting in the wings to come in and save the Republican ticket in 2012. He talks the talk, but seldom walks the walk. He isn’t a terrible governor, but that elephant has a ton of RINO blood in him.

    • gmiller

      Sorry, Nancy, but Narco is not a natural born citizen, either. Let’s not compound the error.

  • Ron Kean

    I have Natural Born Citizen Fatigue.

    • http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/ Bernard Goldberg

      me too, Ron.

      • BettySueLA

        How pathetic to have “fatigue” when it comes to our laws and Constitution. You deserve the government you are getting under the worst “President” in history because you don’t love your country enough to support upholding the laws of our land. Pathetic. Just pathetic. I’m fatigued of you idiots who don’t know what the hell you are talking about, and refuse to educate yourselves before you vomit your misinformation and drivel.

        • relaxbettysuela

          Bettysue, do you accept that Madison was one of the founding fathers and had a hand in writing the constitution? Do you refute his quote on the matter? You can’t because it is a fact that he said this, you can look it up. Lets say for example Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci code, explains something about his book; that it is completely fiction. A reader then refuses this assertion by the AUTHOR and believes everything in the book. How dense can a person be to not listen to what the author of a document says about said document and its meaning? I think you are just angry at the state of the economy, and if you were a true conservative, as you seem to portray yourself, you would have prepared for times like these by actually being fiscally conservative. I doubt that you were because there are very few fiscally conservative people left in the USA, every moron wants to live far beyond their means and leave nothing for their children. A little advice, stop being angry at the world because you made the wrong decisions in life, its not the presidents fault you have 35 mortgages on your house so you can buy 4 tons of shoes and a fancy car, its your fault.

      • Gorefan

        If you want to see some heads explode than suggest a Rubio/Jindal ticket in 2016.

      • ron w

        berny are you tired from spewing your lies? you and bill o are both hacks. its sad too if you could just be a bit more honest. this is why the talking ny head is slowly dieing. the truth has no agenda!

        • A US Citizen

          “the truth has no agenda!”

          …and your agenda has no truth!

          Reminds me of the last time I took the train.
          The ticket seller asked me “Berther?”
          I replied, “No, I voted for Obama.”

      • Trial

        Hey Bernie,

        May I ask why you said this during the O’Reilly show?

        “I would put him (Rubio) on the ticket if he was from Guam”

        You conveniently left this out of your article. I know it hurts some of the points you’re trying to make, but…