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)

#251

Post by Loren » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:43 am

Leo chimes in with [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/]Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.





Leo makes a lengthy argument about one sentence on page 48 of the memo. It's a screwy argument, but it's his conclusion that really caught my attention:





"This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility."





Yes, this one sentence that Leo finds misleading "strips the entire memo of all credibility."

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

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

#252

Post by BFB » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:50 am

Leo chimes in with [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/]Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.





Leo makes a lengthy argument about one sentence on page 48 of the memo. It's a screwy argument, but it's his conclusion that really caught my attention:





"This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility."





Yes, this one sentence that Leo finds misleading "strips the entire memo of all credibility."Otherwise known as the essayist's "Hail Mary Pass."

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

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

#253

Post by mimi » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:59 am

Leo chimes in with [/break1]wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/]Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.





Leo makes a lengthy argument about one sentence on page 48 of the memo. It's a screwy argument, but it's his conclusion that really caught my attention:





"This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility."





Yes, this one sentence that Leo finds misleading "strips the entire memo of all credibility."

dude.





http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpre ... .jpg?w=450

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34949
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#254

Post by realist » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:02 am

Leo Sez...Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.” Id. at 460.Because it matters not, whether the Court merely stated that factoid or not, as to whether the son is a citizen/natural born citizen, although Leo's argument seems to be at odds with his two citizen parents mantra... here Leo is arguing that one parent is sufficient. :P Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally. But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever. The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.Leo should certainly know about deceptive behavior deserving no respect whatsoever. He's been engaged in it since he entered the world of birthers, along with his BFF Apuzzo and others.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27258
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#255

Post by bob » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:11 am

When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.Pot. Kettle. Black.[highlight]The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming[/highlight]. I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution. I know that sounds paranoid. And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy. [highlight]If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame[/highlight].
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9811
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

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

#256

Post by GreatGrey » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:12 am

dude.Reminds me of an old joke about BMW's and porcupines.Pricks?
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#257

Post by Slarti the White » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:14 am

[highlight]If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame[/highlight].I think Leo is already covered head to toe by the tinfoil body suit of shame--I guess he wants the hat to complete the ensemble...
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27258
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#258

Post by bob » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:46 am

Here's the [/break1]lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/253/454.html]'graf getting Donofrio's tin-foil panties in a bunch. Compare:


In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[it] is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”with


It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark[]. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the calim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, Cal.Maskell's editing is correct: It was undisputed that his parents at the time of his birth were not U.S. citizens. (In 1915, Kwock Jan Fat claimed he was 18; he was born at the latest in 1897; Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898.)


Donofrio's a-ha:


Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:


…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.Maskell never mentions this because it isn't true. SCOTUS already noted that Kwock Jan Fat's parents were domiciles (not citizens) at the time of his birth. There is nothing in the case that even implies Kwock Jan Fat's father was born in the United States. Moreover, even if his father was born in the United States, that did not guarantee citizenship, as Kwock Jan Fat's birth (and, therefore, his father's birth) pre-dated Wong Kim Ark. That his father, subsequent to Kwock Jan Fat's birth and Wong Kim Ark, registered to vote is immaterial to the issue of anyone's citizenship at the time of Kwock Jan Fat's birth.








And I haven't even had my coffee yet.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

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

#259

Post by mimi » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:03 pm

And I haven't even had my coffee yet.wow! Okay, paraclete dude. whatcha' got to say?

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

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

#260

Post by Kriselda Gray » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:23 pm

When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.Pot. Kettle. Black.[highlight]The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming[/highlight]. I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution. I know that sounds paranoid. And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy. [highlight]If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame[/highlight].And when they don't come to pass, I think each of us should send him a lovely tin-foil hat as a reminder of his promise :D
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

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

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

#261

Post by Loren » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:50 pm

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 former is, of course, the way the birthright citizenship argument has played out over the last several years. Opponents of universal birthright citizenship *acknowledge* that current law grants citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil, but they argue that it *shouldn't*. That the Constitution was misinterpreted, and that we need to fix that.





Which, as you say, is a world of difference from simply declaring "No, despite what the Court says, native-born persons are already NOT necessarily citizens."

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

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

#262

Post by PatGund » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:49 pm

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.Not surprising. I've seen quite a few birthers cite the Supreme Court ruling in Scott v Sandford to fact their arguments. They get REALLY flustered and upset though when one goes "Oh, you mean the Dred Scott decision, widely considered to be the worst ruling made by the Supreme Court and later overturned by the 14th Amendment???"Then again, I've also seen more than a few of them talk about "14th Amendment Citizens" as somehow being a different class of citizen.....

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)

#263

Post by jtmunkus » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:58 pm

Then again, I've also seen more than a few of them talk about "14th Amendment Citizens" as somehow being a different class of citizen.....And who can overlook the hypocrisy in a group of people who call themselves "Constitutionalists" who don't acknowledge that amendments are part of the Constitution?





:roll:

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28984
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

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

#264

Post by Foggy » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:01 pm

If I was a birther, I'd be so mad at this Maskill dude I might even learn to spell his name right someday, that's how mad I'd be!By the way, I understand that ol' Jack did take the money for writing this memo. It took weeks of work, and we never once had to threaten his family. He even got a nice bonus, and is hard at work on his next piece, tentatively entitled "No, He Didn't Lose His Citizenship In Indonesia Either". \ :D /
I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27258
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#265

Post by bob » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:04 pm

Okay, paraclete dude. whatcha' got to say?I asked Donofrio a simple question on his blog ("Where does SCOTUS discuss where the father was born?")Deleted.Coward.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#266

Post by Slarti the White » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:06 pm

Then again, I've also seen more than a few of them talk about "14th Amendment Citizens" as somehow being a different class of citizen.....I think that is based on their (completely unfounded) certainty that the 14th Amendment changed the law. They can't seem to find a person of European descent who's status was changed by the Amendment, though...
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#267

Post by Slarti the White » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:08 pm

Okay, paraclete dude. whatcha' got to say?I asked Donofrio a simple question on his blog ("Where does SCOTUS discuss where the father was born?")Deleted.Coward.For someone who claims to be a poker player, the Paraclete has an awfully bad bluff...
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34949
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#268

Post by realist » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:51 pm

Not surprising. I've seen quite a few birthers cite the Supreme Court ruling in Scott v Sandford to fact their arguments. They get REALLY flustered and upset though when one goes "Oh, you mean the Dred Scott decision, widely considered to be the worst ruling made by the Supreme Court and later [highlight]overturned[/highlight] by the 14th Amendment???"Being nit-picky.I think "abrogated" would be a better choice of words and more accurate than "overturned."Just my .02.Carry on. :D
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

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

#269

Post by mimi » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:03 pm

Okay, paraclete dude. whatcha' got to say?I asked Donofrio a simple question on his blog ("Where does SCOTUS discuss where the father was born?")Deleted.Coward.Of course he's a coward. If he wasn't, he'd actually file something rather than just blog to a bunch of birfers.Orly may be the worst lawyer on the planet, but she's no coward. Leo has no balls. [-(

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

#270

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:06 pm

Okay, paraclete dude. whatcha' got to say?I asked Donofrio a simple question on his blog ("Where does SCOTUS discuss where the father was born?")Deleted.Coward.Of course he's a coward. If he wasn't, he'd actually file something rather than just blog to a bunch of birfers.Orly may be the worst lawyer on the planet, but she's no coward. Leo has no balls. [-(Leo's habit of pulling out of chess tournaments when staying in would hurt his artificially inflated ranking is pretty indicative of his typical behavior. By pulling out of birther litigation after his miserable failure at it, he at least stays ahead of Orly in the birther rankings. He is not the worst birther lawyer ever, because he is too afraid to lose again and get sanctioned again. But that way, he can say he hasn't lost as many cases as Orly.

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

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

#271

Post by mimi » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:14 pm

mebbe. but he still loses out in the 'balls' category.

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#272

Post by Slarti the White » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:34 pm

Leo's habit of pulling out of chess tournaments when staying in would hurt his artificially inflated ranking is pretty indicative of his typical behavior. By pulling out of birther litigation after his miserable failure at it, he at least stays ahead of Orly in the birther rankings. He is not the worst birther lawyer ever, because he is too afraid to lose again and get sanctioned again. But that way, he can say he hasn't lost as many cases as Orly."A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man only one" Leo may not have as many losses on his record as Orly does, but all that makes him is a small pitiful man that no one will ever confuse for brave. Orly, on the other hand, may be stupid and incompetent (and many other uncomplimentary things as well--although, unfortunately, disbarred is not yet one of them...), but she's no coward.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34949
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#273

Post by realist » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:06 pm

Leo's bullshit lying "analysis" is posted at ORYR.





As always, the comments on birther sites are just comedy gold...





Anonymous said...[Reply]





The heightened pace of propaganda to distract is another indication that barry soetero is in deep weeds. The sheer lunacy of having a president (putative) with no documentation of his past speaks volumes as to the incompetence of present leaders. To think the FBI, CIA, NSA, cannot in one NY minute expose the fraud liar-in-chief is naive. The handwriting is on the wall the ENTIRE US government as we once knew it is sold out. Everyone in DC is corrupt.





To that, you say prove it. [highlight]Proof is presented everyday. In what way? NOT ONE will stand that is in a position of authority.[/highlight] Yeah, couldn't be because they know it's all crap, could it? ](*,) All the work, all the effort to wake up this country against the evil we face is being done by [highlight]concerned citizens[/highlight]. [lying seditionist bastards is more accurate] And you think CONgress represents you! You are wrong. Sen. Kyl is retiring next year. He has nothing to lose by addressing the impostor in the Oval office. He and his staff will not give you 5 seconds on the subject. Rep. Ben Quayle supposed conservative will not even look your way on the subject or his staff.





Folks I'm telling you something else is in the works. To have this kinda gag order in unison for all corrupt CONgress to adhere to is very, very suspicious.


No, not suspicious, they just know it's all crap.





And then there's this beauty... pure birther blather.





57th State said...[Reply]





Minor v. Happesett is a wonderful example of what the Supreme Court was chartered to do, interpret the Constitution. The only definition provided by the Constitution for a citizen of the US before the 14th Amendment was that provided for eligibility of our president, by far the largest class of citizens in the US, natural born citizens. It was common law, [highlight]made precedence in Minor v. Happersett[/highlight]. It was cited as dictum by founder, framer, and our 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall in the Venus, 1814. [highlight]Marshall cited Vattel as the most concise source for the defintion,[/highlight] but Chief Justice Waite, in 1874 cited no one. [highlight]He turned common law into positive law - precedence - stare decisis.[/highlight]





“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.”





Elizabeth Minor was a natural born citizen, and thus a citizen, before the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. [highlight]This fact was essential to the decision[/highlight], and was [highlight]cited by several dozen other supreme court cases, including Ex. Parte Lockwood.[/highlight]





A person born on our soil to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Is does not mean inclusion, it means identity. Without Article II Section 1 Minor v. Happersett could not have been decided. Read Minor v. Happersett. About natural born citizens there was never doubt. [highlight]About who were citizens there was doubt[/highlight]. :roll: About Elizabeth Minor's status, for the court to have jurisdiction, there could be no doubt - and there wasn't. She was a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark was not made a natural born citizen, and Justice Gray, who wrote the decision, cited Minor v. Happersett, a unanimous confirmation of the definition of who were natural born citizens. Justice Gray was also on the court which wrote Ex. Parte Lockwood, and confirmed the holding in Minor. There is no doubt if you first http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/posting. ... 12163#read original sources, in this case, Minor v. Happersett, you will see, because [highlight]Chief Justice Waite explains, why he turned common-law into positive law.[/highlight] :shock: As Waite said, “It was never doubted...”





There never was a contention that a “native born U.S. citizen has presidential eligibility. When the Constitution was written the term “native born U.S. citizen” was never used. A “Native” as Minor v. Happersett clarifies, is the same as a natural born citizen. Obama is, by his own definition, “A Native born citizen of the US.” The term was coined after the 14th Amendment to refer to a 14th Amendment citizen, born on our soil, but not to parents who are its citizens, as characterized in and by Wong Kim Ark, in which [highlight]Justice Gray cites Minor v. Happersett for the definition of natural born citizen.[/highlight] No where is the term natural born citizen used in the US Code. No law can interpret a provision of the Constitution. [highlight]A 14th Amendment citizen, like Obama, is a naturalized citizen - naturalized at birth[/highlight]. ](*,) A naturalized citizen is not eligible to be president.


Ignorant and hopeless.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

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

#274

Post by Slarti the White » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:14 pm

Leo's bullshit lying "analysis" is posted at ORYR.





As always, the comments on birther sites are just comedy gold...











And then there's this beauty... pure birther blather.

















No law can interpret a provision of the Constitution. [highlight]A 14th Amendment citizen, like Obama, is a naturalized citizen - naturalized at birth[/highlight]. ](*,) A naturalized citizen is not eligible to be president.


Ignorant and hopeless.But the Constitution (the good part, according to birthers) gives Congress the power of naturalization... #-o ](*,) :((
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”