Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#226

Post by Loren » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:01 pm

I’m going out on a limb here. . . elect me president and I will BAR (hee hee) attorneys from serving in the State and Federal houses of Congress. Only the judicial branch is where they belong.Someone else needs to read up on Separation of Powers. Sounds like someone supports the nutty interpretation of the [/break1]thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/27/why-some-republicans-want-to-restore-the-13th-amendment.html]'original' 13th Amendment.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#227

Post by SueDB » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:03 pm

The last thing my spouse said to me going out the door was, "Don't forget the Mixed Nuts!"
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34943
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#228

Post by realist » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:06 pm

November 14, 2011 Hmmmmmm, timing is curious.This is a paper that says it doesn't matter if your parents are aliens and discounts any Vattel influence.5 posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:19:27 AM by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)DUH!!! :lol:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27207
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#229

Post by bob » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:14 pm

Hmmmmmm, timing is curious.This "concern" is making the rounds.It is as if Congress was concerned about an upcoming election in which doubts had been raised about a candidate. :-k (Which has spawn the other concern, "If this is settled, why the need to write a report?")
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12222
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#230

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:26 pm

From [link]Doc C's,http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/11/ ... ent-138662[/link]As someone with 28 years experience in the Congressional Research Service (I retired 10 years ago), here’s a few observations:John says the new Maskell report “is just one lawyer’s argument,” which, since his name is the only one on the cover, is true on its face. But Maskell didn’t just write this up, have it printed, & then make it available for distribution. Before the report left the American Law Division in CRS, where he works, it was certainly peer-reviewed, definitely at the section level (Jack was in the ALD Courts Section, according to my old 2001 CRS phone directory) & then at the division level, most likely the Assistant CRS Director who heads the division & her Deputy Assistant Director. From there it went up to the CRS Director’s office for another separate review. If Jack’s draft had not passed muster at any level, it would have gone back to him for revision & rewrite. The final published report reflects not just Jack’s 38 years of experience in CRS making sense of complex constitutional issues, but also the vetting of experienced colleagues.This process has resulted in a product that is small-c conservative. That is, cutting-edge legal arguments & conclusions are absent. Instead, the work is grounded in statutory & case law, using widely accepted means of analysis & interpretation that do not venture beyond what the precedents, documentation & texts can support.Several commenters have wondered who asked for the original report. The most likely answer is, no one in particular. Jack’s first product on the issue, back in April 2009, was a general distribution memorandum, “prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.” After Obama’s inauguration, birther questions started coming in to congressional offices (undoubtedly they started well before the inauguration, they just picked up after Obama became president), who had no clue how to answer. They bucked the question over to CRS, which prepared that short memo for congressional offices of all political persuations to respond factually to the most commonly made assertions about presidential eligibility.John is kinda right when he says that CRS came out with this new report because “complaints are starting to pop up all over the place.” Actually, the “complaints” never went away, they kept coming, with old, refuted assertions reasserted & new assertions made to accompany them (Long-time readers & contributors to this blog will know what I’m talking about.) The likelihood is that this stuff will persist for as long as Obama is president, regardless of the shoddiness of what passes for evidence. (Check out snopes.com for the longevity of the fear that the FCC is considering a petition from atheists to ban religious broadcasting ) Figuring that this topic is an evergreen, CRS has responded with a full-fledged major report, which is as long as it has to be to cover every aspect of the qualifications controversy in convincing detail. This definitely is a major CRS report: it’s long; it has a specific report number (R42097, located down in the lower right-hand corner of the cover); & it’s in what CRS defines as report format (separate cover, table of contents) as opposed to memorandum format (look at Jack’s 2009 product, with the To/From/Subject layout & the text of the memo beginning immediately under it) Also, as a report, it can be easily revised & updated as new assertions are made or new developments occur.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#231

Post by Loren » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:28 pm

Hmmmmmm, timing is curious.This "concern" is making the rounds.





It is as if Congress was concerned about an upcoming election in which doubts had been raised about a candidate.


:-k





(Which has spawn the other concern, "If this is settled, why the need to write a report?")Also, is there any time in the last three years that would NOT be deemed "curious"?





For the last six months it's "curious" because it's during the lead-up to primary season. For the six months prior to that, it would have been "curious" because states were contemplating Birther legislation. For several months before that it would have been "curious" because there were midterm elections approaching. Also, it would have been concurrent with the Terry Lakin case. Before that you just had a series of Birther lawsuits; you could pick any month at random between January 2009 and July 2010, and you'd probably be within a month of some Birther having a new case filed or a judge dismissing a Birther case. And, of course, any release of such a report prior to January 2009 would have been deemed "curious" because of the election and inauguration.





It's exactly the same as when someone like butterdezillion or MissTickly would claim that some computer problem they were having was the result of sabotage following some particular Birther research they were doing. Of course any computer problems would happen after they did Birther research, because they were ALWAYS engaged in some kind of Birther research.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12222
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#232

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:32 pm

Hmmmmmm, timing is curious.This "concern" is making the rounds.It is as if Congress was concerned about an upcoming election in which doubts had been raised about a candidate. :-k (Which has spawn the other concern, "If this is settled, why the need to write a report?")The hard-core birthers are doubling down. More proof that TPTB are running scared, it's all coming out now, yada yada yada. It's quite bewildering to me, actually. ](*,)
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#233

Post by jtmunkus » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:33 pm

BirtherLogic





The whole CRS report is wrong because:





1) It doesn't agree with the lies Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo have taught us are truths.


2) I still hate black presidents.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#234

Post by mimi » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:38 pm

The Ob[/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2813999/posts?q=1&;page=51]Freep thread.

ahhh, birther tears.





To: Triple


Interesting that the CRS did not seem to consider Minor v. Happersett.





That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.No, it just indicates poor reading on your part. The CRS author spends a full page on Minor v. Happersett, specifically on pp. 28-29 (pp. 31-32 of the PDF).


54 posted on 11/30/2011 8:18:25 AM PST by Vickery2010


[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]To: Vickery2010





yep - it was mentioned, and I missed it.





Strange how the author got the interpretation of that case wrong, and left it out of the summary - doncha think?





55 posted on 11/30/2011 8:35:49 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)


[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#235

Post by mimi » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:47 pm

Wow, this piece is a legal mess. This falls under the category of "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with bull manure." The author makes several critical errors and unsupported assumptions. I'll point out a few:The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark thus concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment “affirms”the common law rule of “citizenship by birth within the territory,” even if one is born of alien parents in this country, and approved of the characterization of the children of such resident aliens as “natural born” citizens of the United States.63There's nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that "approved" a characterization of children of resident aliens as natural born citizens. This is an outright fabrication. It's footnoted to page 693, which is the part where Gray quotes Binney saying the child of an alien "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen." This passage doesn't approve of a characterization, nor does anything else on this page. It's making an analogy in which it still distinguishes children of aliens from natural-born citizenship. It only says their level of citizenship is the same by virtue of the 14th amendment, which no one disagrees with. If the president requirement was only basic citizenship, then this would be true. But it requires the specific characterization of "natural-born" which is neither expressly stated nor implied. Secondly, this is the same kind of dicta that Maskell downplays from Minor. He also ignores that this passage requires domicile (Obama's father was not domiciled in the U.S.): "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction ..." Under this requirement, Obama fails to be a 14th amendment citizen.of course there's more. After all, it's a 'legal mess'. [/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2813999/posts?page=61#61]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-cha ... page=61#61

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#236

Post by Loren » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:51 pm

[/break1]blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=8404387115940856376]Mario Apuzzo reacts:





This new Jack Maskell memo is nothing but a cut and paste from Obot web sites. He stamps everything that breathes as a "natural born Citizen." Mr. Maskell is a master at hiding how he confounds and conflates a "natural born Citizen" with "citizen of the United States. I am working on some essays right now which I will be publishing shortly. After doing that, I will address Mr. Maskell's new memo.Read the central sentence of that comment again:





"Mr. Maskell is a master at hiding how he confounds and conflates a "natural born Citizen" with "citizen of the United States."





Maskell is a master at what, exactly?

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#237

Post by Loren » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:09 pm

of course there's more. After all, it's a 'legal mess'.





[/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2813999/posts?page=61#61]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-cha ... page=61#61New terminology!





"What Waite did NOT solve is the issue of territorial-birth citizenship."

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27207
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#238

Post by bob » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:26 pm

ORYR [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/11/alabama-election-fraud-complaint.html?showComment=1322682220757#c8705888135141134741]comment:


The weight of the current case are without weight given that NONE have been heard on the merits for want of jurisdiction and/or standing. [highlight]But what is telling is the lack of citations of Scott v Sandford and Minor v Happersett[/highlight], both precedent setting and seminal cases, the former laying the groundwork for both the Civil War and the 13th & 14th Amendments and the later highlighting the FACT that under the Constitutional Rule of Law an Amendment would be required to provide women with suffrage in for the National (Federal) Elections.There are numerous comments out there criticizing the report for failing to mention these cases (or Rogers v. Bellei or Schneider v. Rusk). All of which, of course, are cited in the report.*





It is as if birthers haven't read it.


:-k








* The report also cites Craig's fail of a case. \ :D /
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#239

Post by ballantine » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:32 pm

I think that is the first thing slcraig has written that I understand. A stupid comment, but at least it is English as opposed to most of his blog posts.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27207
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#240

Post by bob » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:35 pm

I think that is the first thing slcraig has written that I understand. A stupid comment, but at least it is English as opposed to most of his blog posts.Thank a kind editor.Sekrit Stuffs!
The Constitutional history is that it was written on the principles of ‘natural law” and established as the Supreme Law of the land. That, in its-self would suggest that the usage of the ‘term of words’ being without accreditation to some other “Nations/States” usage makes it implicitly of the “natural laws” commonly understood usage. Couple that with the FACT that it was the Fathers/Husbands Citizenship which was determinative of the “family’s” Citizenship leaves the remainder of the 1st paragraph as obfuscations and ignorant of the Constitutional Rule of Law. The 1790 Act to make an uniform Rule of naturalization firmly established Jus Sanguinis determinative of U.S. Citizenship and the 1795 Act ‘repealing’ the foreign born NBC provision firmly established that BOTH Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli were requisite circumstances to ACTUALLY be a natural born Citizen. In NO Act will Jus Soli Citizenship be found for persons born to persons who were not already Citizens except in the circumstance of a person having died while under application for naturalization.The weight of the current case are without weight given that NONE have been heard on the merits for want of jurisdiction and/or standing. But what is telling is the lack of citations of Scott v Sandford and Minor v Happersett, both precedent setting and seminal cases, the former laying the groundwork for both the Civil War and the 13th & 14th Amendments and the later highlighting the FACT that under the Constitutional Rule of Law an Amendment would be required to provide women with suffrage in for the National (Federal) Elections.The point being, NO LAWS or Court Opinions can “abridge, enlarge or otherwise modify” the needs of the subject Clause except by Amendment and NONE can be said to be a “controlling legal authority” without THAT assertion being adjudicated.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#241

Post by ballantine » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:36 pm

[/break1]blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=8404387115940856376]Mario Apuzzo reacts:Mario needs to explain to Congress his theory on "Citizen" with a big "C" and "citizen" with a small "c." Wait until Congress finds out an attorney with Mario's Constitutional credentials disagrees with thye CRS. Really quite sad these nobodies think themselves Constitutional experts.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#242

Post by verbalobe » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:51 pm

There's nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that "approved" a characterization of children of resident aliens as natural born citizens. This is an outright fabrication. It's footnoted to page 693, which is the part where Gray quotes Binney saying the child of an alien "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen." This passage doesn't approve of a characterization, nor does anything else on this page. It's making an analogy in which it still distinguishes children of aliens from natural-born citizenship....If one chooses to parse such passages this way (i.e., wrongly, but whatever), one should at least be consistent.





He's asserting that any phrase that states "A is exactly like B" inherently acknowledges a difference between A and B, merely by alluding to them separately.





What he glosses over is that the "B" in the citation is not even "natural-born citizenship" -- the quote does not use the literal words "natural born citizen." It says "natural-born child of a citizen." So by his own logic, the essential quality of being "natural born" must be distinct from the circumstance of being "child of a citizen."





Which, of course, is true.

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#243

Post by ballantine » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:09 pm

If one chooses to parse such passages this way (i.e., wrongly, but whatever), one should at least be consistent.





He's asserting that any phrase that states "A is exactly like B" inherently acknowledges a difference between A and B, merely by alluding to them separately.





What he glosses over is that the "B" in the citation is not even "natural-born citizenship" -- the quote does not use the literal words "natural born citizen." It says "natural-born child of a citizen." So by his own logic, the essential quality of being "natural born" must be distinct from the circumstance of being "child of a citizen."





Which, of course, is true.They don't cite the whole passage:





"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”





It is saying that they both are citizens by operation of the same principle. If they are citizens by operation of the same principle, they are obviously the same type of citizen. If you read Binney’s paper, that principle is the English common law rule of locality of birth. He says we adopted the English common law and that parentage is irrelevant. He defined “natural born subject” and “natural born citizens” as someone born “within the limits and under the jurisdiction” of the sovereign in accordance with Blackstone.





“But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg. 206 (February 1854).





Binney’s paper is just more evidence that we adopted the English common law. Leave it to birthers to cite a paper on the English common law as defining "natural born" other than by the English common law.

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#244

Post by Loren » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:23 am

There are numerous comments out there criticizing the report for failing to mention these cases (or Rogers v. Bellei or Schneider v. Rusk). All of which, of course, are cited in the report.*





It is as if birthers haven't read it.[/break1]wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977]Corsi does the same thing:





In so concluding, Maskell intentionally ignores the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" qualification within the language of the 14th Amendment that opponents to anchor babies and birth tourism feel invalidates the entire concept that being born in the U.S. is sufficient to being deemed a "U.S. citizen at birth."Yes, Maskell "intentionally ignores" that...except for his discussion of EXACTLY that on pp. 13-14 of the memo.

Balak
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:43 am

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#245

Post by Balak » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:03 am

World Net Daily has just launched a fierce counter-attack against the CRS Memo. I suggest a great deal of MOCKING is called for:Unruh Babbles http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi ... 73085Corsi Attacks http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi ... 372977Poll http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE ... litichicks Opinion http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi ... d=372937My friend, Anna Grayham agrees this is overboard for WND.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9795
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#246

Post by GreatGrey » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:11 am

World Net Daily has just launched a fierce counter-attack against the CRS Memo. I suggest a great deal of MOCKING is called for:Unruh Babbles http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=373085]Unruh links to Dr. C's copy. Doc should add a watermark.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#247

Post by verbalobe » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:49 am

It has never been as clear to me, as after reading this latest CRS report, that the Vattel theories (when espoused by anyone with more deliberate sense than a mere parrot) are not just in effect but in actual fact an attempt to turn back the clock on a century and a half of progress in treating the races equally under the law.





Maskell neatly places Minor in historical context:





The Supreme Court itself soon began to question, re-evaluate, and move away from the legal reasoning underlying the Dred Scott decision. In one early Supreme Court case after Dred Scott, the Court narrowly applied the earlier theory of citizenship in Dred Scott (as being only the original community of people who ratified the Constitution and their progeny), and relied instead on the common law to discuss the concept of citizenship in the United States after the original generation of citizens. The Court noted that those children born on the soil of the United States to citizen-parents would clearly be among those who are "natural born" citizens under the common law, but did not rule or hold that such category of citizenship was exclusive to such children.I recommend this paper.





My mind boggles (all over again) at the base dishonesty of the 'Vattelist' or 'Vattel-like' birther arguments (including Leo's recent kerfuffle with Minor and Justia).





I could understand (barely) if they acknowledged that all those jurists, decisions, scholars, commentaries, proceedings, and texts SAID the things they said, defining NBC the way they did -- and then made some sort of minimally honest attempt to claim that they shouldn't have; that it's bad law, or somehow incorrect, or bad for the country, or something, anything.





Instead, they deny that the things they said mean what they mean, wringing tortured birther cant from sentence fragments. And when the citations are just too direct and plainspoken to be mistaken:





The federal courts have on numerous occasions examined those two categories of citizens of the United States— "natural born" citizens (those who are citizens "by birth"), and "naturalized" citizens (those who are born "aliens" and who must go through the process of "naturalization") — in the context of the various rights and duties of such citizens within these two categories. The Court has thus explained that "eligibility to the Presidency" is one of the very few "rights and


prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country" which is not available to a "naturalized" citizen. Similarly, the Court has noted: "The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural-born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion...."; and the Court has examined the right of New York to require its "class of civil servants to be citizens, either natural born or naturalized." The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit more recently explained that "once naturalized [appellant] is afforded precisely the same protection of his right to associate as is a natural born citizen." Referring specifically to eligibility to the office of President, a United States Court of Appeals found:


No more is demanded of an alien who becomes a citizen than a natural-born citizen, and, when an alien becomes a citizen, he is accorded all the rights and privileges afforded to a natural-born citizen except eligibility to the presidency....the birthers simply ignore them, and retreat to the echo chamber.





This brand of birthism, like the others (Kenya, LFBC forgery, whatever Orly's claim-du-jour is), is a vile illness, a backward-looking, racist, dishonest stain on an America that has always found new greatness in inclusion and equality.

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#248

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:52 am

The only way to counter this Maskelly Masterpiece is for WND to move the goalposts (once again). Time to demand the microfish!

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Congressional Research Service debunking of Birtherism (2nd CRS memo found)

#249

Post by jtmunkus » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:31 am

This brand of birthism, like the others (Kenya, LFBC forgery, whatever Orly's claim-du-jour is), is a vile illness, a backward-looking, racist, dishonest stain on an America that has always found new greatness in inclusion and equality.It is another sad chapter in this country's civil rights struggle. Thanks for framing this so succinctly.

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”