On Natural Born Citizenship:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

When this website was suspended, your host continued involvement on Facebook and from time to time wrote notes on various matters. Some of them have been published here after this website was reactivated and others have not but perhaps at some point will be. One of the subjects to which your host devoted a bunch of writing to was that of presidential eligibility back in 2012 when among the subjects treated were as follows:

On Natural Born Citizenship, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Etc. 

On Natural Born Citizenship, the Supreme Court, Common Law, the Founders, and Birther "Champion" George D. Collins 

On Birthers and Some Fundamental Problems With the Kenyan Birth Hypothesis 

On Barack Obama II and His Post-Birth Citizenship Status 

On the Issues of Eligibility, Birthers, Conspiracies, Various and Sundry "Posses", Methodologies of Interaction, Etc.

Dispatching With the Vattel Canard, Etc. 

Some Rational Answers To A Few Additional Questions About Barack Hussein Obama II

This material was also revisited in 2016 with a reworked version of the second note's material from above:

Revisiting the Subject of Natural Born Citizenship For 2016 and Beyond

What you are about to read is the material from the first note above originally published on April 24, 2012. As in that format, all words of my interlocuters were in bold font so I will leave that unchanged in this re-visitation. Without further ado...

My God, how dense can you people be? Read a little bit before spouting off stupidity!

Whenever I see someone respond like this, I immediately become a grammar and fact-checking fiend on whatever they write.

Read Marbury v. Happerset.

There is no Marbury vs. Happerset case. There was Marbury vs. Madison. There was Minor vs. Happersett  -the latter with two t's not one by the way. There is something rather amusing about those who cannot get their basic facts like this right when they are calling other folks stupid but I digress.

Read the Supreme Court's rulings on this.

I have. They do not say what you claim they do.

A Natural Born citizen is born in the United States of parents who are BOTH citizens.

This is not correct.

It is why Obama is not eligible and the same rule applies to Rubio. Being born here is not enough.

The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this.

You have to have BOTH parents as citizens too.

There is no law in this country that says that, the Founders did not understand the concept of natural born citizenship that way, and there is no Supreme Court case has ever made a ruling of that sort. Not even the oft-misunderstood Minor vs. Happersett  case which was a case involving voting rights of a specific individual. The Supreme Court made it very clear in that case that they were not making a ruling on the full franchise of what constituted a natural born citizen. Or to quote from the Court itself in Minor vs. Happersett  (all emphasis is mine):

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,

and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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.

Why was it not necessary to solve the points noted above in the case of question? The reason was because Virginia Minor was asserting that she had a constitutional right to vote. The Supreme Court therefore had to resolve two questions in this case and they were (i) was Virginia Minor a citizen of the United States and (ii) did the Constitution grant her if she was a citizen of the United States the right to vote. On the first point the Court pointed out that there were different classifications of citizens who were viewed as natural born. There was one such group of which there was no doubt and that was children born to two parents who were themselves citizens. The other group the Court noted{1} was one which included as natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction of the United States without reference to parental citizenship.

The aforementioned category did not share the same absence of all possible doubt as the first one did; however, since Virginia Minor was a child born in the United States to two citizen parents, the Court recognized that she qualified as a natural born citizen under even the most narrow of definitions and therefore saw no reason to go any further on the matter. In fact, they explicitly said they were not going to do so in the case of Minor vs. Happersett.{2}

However, in 1898 the Supreme Court did have to decide on the matter of citizenship with someone whose situation was not the same as Virginia Minor. That person was Wong Kim Ark who was born around 1873 in the United States to Chinese parents. He had as a very young man made a couple of short visits to China and upon his return from the second trip was denied entry into the country under the claim that he was not a citizen of the United States. Wong Kim Ark sued on this matter and when it got to the Supreme Court, the Court was required to take up the issue of a child born in the United States whose parents though legally in the country were not themselves either born in the United States or naturalized citizens. The name of that case was United States vs. Wong Kim Ark  and the Court in its decision ruled in favour of Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Here is the essence of the decision:

A child born in the United States who has alien parents who are domiciled in the United States and not serving in a diplomatic or other official capacity acquires United States citizenship at birth by way of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause.

Now I am aware of how birther sorts will try and raise the "natural born citizen" line but as usual, they do not know what they are talking about. To cover this matter briefly, there are only two ways you can become a citizen in this country. One is being natural born and the other is being naturalized. And there are two ways a child can meet the criteria of natural born citizen (i) at birth and (ii) by birth. To touch on each of them in bulletpoint form:

• To become a natural born citizen "at birth", the child needs to be born in the United States regardless of the citizenship status of their parents as long as said parents were not diplomats or in some other official capacity in service to a foreign country. This is what is called jus soli or "right of soil" insofar as the child is born on United States soil.

• To become a natural born citizen "by birth", it happens whereby the child is born overseas or in some jurisdiction of the United States but not on US soil but of whom at least one of their parents is a United States citizen who has also met the proper residency requirements. This is what is called jus sanguinis  or "right of blood."{3}

In either of the situations noted above, it involves the child being properly considered a natural born citizen according to the English legal tradition that the Founders themselves were educated in. And for those who are not familiar with it, here is how the concept was outlined by William Blackstone in his Commentaries  series on the Laws of England{4} of which the Founders themselves{5} were thoroughly familiar with:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. [Commentaries of the Laws of England (circa 1765)]

In other words, no matter where Barack Obama was born{6}, he still meets the criteria of being a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore is not ineligible to be President of the United States. As far as other persons mentioned in relation to the presidency or vice presidency, Senator Marco Rubio fits the jus soli  requirement of natural born citizenship insofar as his parents though non-citizens were domiciled in the United States when he was born. Another who meets the jus soli  criteria in the fashion of Sen. Rubio is Louisiana Governor Pyush (Bobby) Jindal who was born in Louisiana to non-citizen parents who were domiciled in the United States.

Incidentally, there was a controversy in 1968 when Willard Mitt Romney's father George Romney ran for president about his eligibility to be president because of his birth in Mexico City.{7} George Romney met the natural born citizen criteria courtesy of jus sanguinis  and his son Willard Mitt Romney meets the natural born citizen criteria to run in 2008 and also in 2012 courtesy of jus soli  with Detroit, Michigan being his birthplace.

There is in other words no credible foundation for the claim that any of these persons{8} was/is ineligible to run for or hold the office of President of the United States.

Why do you think Obama has fought this so hard? Don't just guess whether something is true or not. Read up on it and learn something before pissing your country away out of frikking ignorance.

Oh I have done more than my fair share of reading up on this stuff and it is quite obvious to me that you have not. In the words of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, "you have the right to your opinion sir but not the right to your own facts." And the facts on these matters do not in any sense of the term support your interpretation of these things.

LEARN THE LAWS!

There is nothing more delicious than being berated as stupid by someone who has themselves manifested stupidity to a mind-numbing degree on the matter with which they would purport to lecture others but I digress.

Notes:

{1} This was not mentioned in Minor vs. Happersett  because it had no bearing on the standing of Virginia Minor who was jus soli  regardless of the other factors involved.

{2} Therefore, Minor vs. Happersett  cannot be used as evidence for what constitutes natural born citizens beyond the limited inquiry that it made into those who fit the parameters that Virginia Minor found herself in.

{3} This is incidentally how Senator John McCain met the "natural born citizen" criteria to run for president in 2000 and 2008.

{4} Certainly every barrister at the Constitutional Convention  knew Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England  well -by some counts as many as 16 of them knew the work by heart.

{5} Even many of the Founders who were not themselves barristers (such as James Madison) had done some rudimentary studies in law using Blackstone's Commentaries.

{6} I do not intend in this note to enter into the particulars of the Kenyan Birth Hypothesis.

{7} There was also a controversy in 1964 with Senator Barry M. Goldwater who was born in the territory of Arizona three years before it became a state.

{8} Whatever one thinks of any of them.

To the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity Necroposting:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Since there are those who want play this game, let me be crystal clear: I have raised exactly one point on this stuff where it is clear Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano either prevaricated or was otherwise flat out disingenuous. I have cared not a whit about much of the rest because I do not have an ax to grind unlike certain parties who are butthurt because Pope Francis was critical about how wide their phylacteries are and the ornate nature of their tassels (cf Matthew xxiii,5).

These folks seem to want to relish publicly gloating and making sport of this akin to what Ham did to his father Abraham (Gen ix,22) rather than act more like Ham's brothers who had more decency and common sense than their brother in how they handled the scandal before them (Gen ix,23). One with a proper spiritual and ethical disposition would rather act in these matters like Seth and Japheth but that is neither here nor there.

Having gotten preliminaries out of the way, let us now look at what Archbishop Vigano originally said versus how he has subsequently spun his story on the main point in question. From the first testimony we have these words:

"Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance... In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi..."

The Archbishop clearly speaks of imposed binding sanctions above because the pretext he draws from this was twofold. The first is that these supposed "sanctions" were "lifted" by Pope Francis:

"It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews... In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him."

And of course as a consequence of this supposed "lifting" of sanctions:

"Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick's abuses and resign with the rest of them."

This is the sequential chain which Vigano constructs to get to his request of papal resignation. Here is the problem with the chain so constructed: the goal posts have been moved repeatedly since the publication of the Archbishop's first testimony. When it was pointed out that then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was present with Archbishop Vigano at public events and even had traveled to Rome and hung out with Pope Benedict, this seriously undermined the claims in Vigano's first testimony. When it was further pointed out that there were no actual sanctions imposed, the problem then was not how flat out wrong (either via prevarication or deliberate duplicitousness) the original claim was but instead how can this be spun to try and salvage the original narrative? This is hardly the actions taken by those who are honest brokers on this matter.

Now the ploy is to play a game of "well maybe they were just private requests" which of course is not the same thing as anyone with a normal intact functioning brain who is honest knows. And adding further difficulties for the original narrative is that the same pope that supposedly imposed these "sanctions" which were then "lifted" cannot even remember what he supposedly did! The Archbishop in his second testimony begs Cardinal Marc Ouellet to vindicate his claims from his first testimony and the Cardinal flat out refutes him on the central chain of Vigano's first set of claims. Again:

"The former Cardinal, retired in May of 2006, had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him. It is false, therefore, to present those measures as 'sanctions' formally imposed by Pope Benedict XVI and then invalidated by Pope Francis. After a review of the archives, I find that there are no documents signed by either Pope in this regard, and there are no audience notes from my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, imposing on the retired Archbishop the obligation to lead a quiet and private life with the weight normally reserved to canonical penalties. The reason is that back then, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged culpability. Thus, the Congregation’s decision was inspired by prudence, and the letters from my predecessor and my own letters urged him, first through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then through you, to lead a life of prayer and penance, for his own good and for the good of the Church."

So what is Vigano's response to this crystal confutation of the core of his initial claims? From the third testimony, he has spun his original very forceful claims down to this:

"Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as 'sanctions' decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically ‘sanctions’ but provisions, ‘conditions and restrictions’ but to quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view, they are exactly the same thing."

Once again the bullshit meter rings out loud and clear. To claim there is no difference between sanctions (what Vigano originally claimed) and "provisions, conditions and restrictions" (what he has now claimed) is double-dealing of no small degree! And obviously there is a difference because Vigano has ceased since his first testimony to call for the resignation of Pope Francis! If there is no difference between what he claimed in the first testimony and what he has claimed since, he would have no reason to move from his original demand. But here is the rub: as there were no sanctions actually imposed, there were therefore no sanctions to lift. So his entire original claim collapses and he knows this; ergo, the manner in which he has moved the goalposts repeatedly on this point.

It is understandable to some extent that those easily confused or who have a vested interest in maintaining an agenda regardless of such inconveniences as facts might be excused if they were of good faith (emphasis on the if in that sentence). But considering that Archbishop Vigano possesses not only a lifetime of service to the Church and also is well credentialed in the area in question (he has a doctorate in canon law!), he ought to know the difference between the two. If he does not then his training is deficient. If he does, than he was being doubly duplicitous at the very least as he was not only playing slipshod with the truth but he was also hoping to skate by on the ignorance of most of those he was appealing to. Misrepresentation of private requests to keep a low profile as having anything akin to actual sanctions is a very grave defect in his original report and no amount of spinning like a top since that time can change that one iota.

Now I am aware that those who are dug in so deep on this that they cannot extricate themselves without having to embarrassingly admit that they were wrong. They have after all been propagating a grave defect and are not likely to want to man up on this which is to their discredit. It is no different than what conspiracy theorists do with their pet hypotheses whereby they stubbornly cling to what they want to believe and either ignore, downplay, or ridicule whatever inconsistencies and/or denials contradict them. What is important after all is not the truth but instead the agenda, advancing the chosen narrative at all costs whatsoever including that of their basic integrity.

For you see, the accuser (Vigano) and those that blindly cling to the accuser's claims can play semantic games while they try to slyly switch the burdens of proof by demanding the accused (Francis) prove their innocence rather than the accuser proving the guilt. The demand is made for documents of unverified existence (but are based solely on the claims of Vigano) to be released to "vindicate" the accuser (see Vigano's second testimony). But then, when documents are not released, the accuser claims this "vindicates" them as the Archbishop claimed in his second testimony. When it is then asserted that there are no documents to be released to substantiate the original claims of the accuser (see Ouellet's response to the second testimony), then the original claims are spun to claim that well there would not be documents anyway because they were not actually sanctions you see but instead were merely "provisions, conditions and restrictions." (Notice the slithering shift there!) And if by chance later on documents were found that did not match the claims of Vigano, then the problem would not be the Archbishop's original testimony you see but instead, it would be the documents so released were somehow doctored and therefore are not reliable anyway.

All of this is textbook protocols of disingenuous and unethical conspiracy theorists and it is how they make sure their claims are self-sealing and thus unable to be debunked. And this sort of practice is highly unethical on the part of not only those who engage in these charades but also those who publicly propagate these matters in smoke and mirror fashion to try and get any answer they want to confirm their preconceived biases. At bottom, to adhere to such a methodology involves both detraction as well as calumny: seemingly virtues in the mindset of those who act this way or by their examples encourage others to. I could go into detail on the profound spiritual diseases that permeates such folks but I question whether the effort would be worth the investment of my time. After all, those who are blind will only fall into the pit of their errors nonetheless (cf. Luke vi,39) so the best recourse is likely prayer. (I would rather as a rule invest my energies there these days where matters such as the above are concerned.)

So in summary, there is not much more that needs to be said here other than that I can admit the possibility that there may be some things of worth in Viganos screed despite the very grave defect noted above. However, those who have made a golden idol out of the Archbishop's original testimony and take glee in every subsequent testimonial release like an adolescent releasing on a nudie magazine centerfold are incapable of doing the converse. Why? Because they are afraid it would undermine their agenda. So these folks can continue to post whatever distractions they want on other points or play the "well it was not a sanction like he said in his letter but really private requests but they are the same thing so there is no spin going on" flimflam bullshit. They are not fooling anyone really. They can try and claim a circle is really a square but it is both disingenuous as well as beneath them to do so. Furthermore, it shows that on this issue they are nothing even remotely approaching honest brokers and need to be kept in prayer as possibly the only way to reach them (cf. Mark ix,29).

Another year gone
Another birthday arrives
Childhood more distant

It used to be said
Living in interesting times
Curse not a blessing

Points to Ponder:

"A church that doesn't provoke any crises, a gospel that doesn't unsettle, a word of God that doesn't get under anyone’s skin, a word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of the society in which it is being proclaimed — what gospel is that?" [St. Oscar Romero]

Points to Ponder:

"Perhaps the Lord has called me and preserved me for this service not because I am particularly fit for it, or so that I can govern and rescue the Church from her present difficulties, but so that I can suffer something for the Church, and in that way it will be clear that he, and no other, is her guide and saviour." [Pope St. Paul VI]

Cocaine Mitch Nets 15 Judicial Appointments As Payment For Recess 

So as part of his ransom demand, the #Mitchfather not only got 15 judges confirmed this week but also 21 additional executive branch appointments. And that's not all...

"Sen. John Kennedy told reporters Wednesday that his understanding is that McConnell wants to clear all of the outstanding judicial and executive nominations during the lame-duck session and is willing to hold senators in Washington through Christmas if needed.

'He is mad as a mama wasp, and he is determined to get these nominations through,' the Louisiana Republican said. 'And I don’t think he’s bluffing'.”

#CocaineMitch
#TheLegendContinues

Points to Ponder:

"If one can clarify one need not agitate. Just to state facts is the most terrible thing that can be done to an injustice...Fact has this advantage over rhetoric -- that time strengthens the one and weakens the other. Tell the truth and time will be your eloquence." [Will Durant]

I Was A Never Trumper Until Democrats Went Gonzo On Kavanaugh. Now, Hand Me That Red Hat

While not exactly my view, there is plenty of convergence of the latter with the above statement. Here is just a taste from the article and of which I concur 100%...

"...The Republican rejection of Merrick Garland was political hardball; the sliming of Kavanaugh was categorically different and much worse. The Democrats crossed the line from policy disagreement to personal destruction, and in doing so they nuked any middle ground between themselves and conservative Trump skeptics. And they put every conservative on notice: You could be next.

If the Democrats will do this to a man as respected and mainstream as Kavanaugh, they will do it to anyone who gets in their way. The left has embraced mob justice that disdains our culture of due process and the presumption of innocence, and merely disagreeing with the mob provokes its wrath. At Facebook, the mob is after an executive who stood by his friend. At my alma mater, a dean was punished for tweeting skeptically about the woman accusing Kavanaugh of running a gang-rape ring in high school. Ordinary people are being targeted for having opinions the mob hates..."

Click here to read the rest.

Briefly...

Since the British tried to exterminate my Irish ancestors and Tsarist Russia brutalized my Ukrainian ancestors that in the spirit of the Christine Ford fan club, I am going to find a Brit and a Russian to curbstomp the shit out of.

Points to Ponder:

"Even if you believe the Bishop of Rome to be in error, that does not give you the right to judge him, for only God can judge the Pope. No mortal man may accuse him of faults." [Pope Pius II: Allocution Multa Hic Hodie (circa November 21, 1459)]

SUNDAY MORNING COMING DOWN

"I want to give a shoutout to my homie Brett Kavanaugh, way to go 'Special K'"

Taylor Swift Inspires 200 Million Fans To Register To Vote In Tennessee

Mitch McConnell: Forget Merrick Garland, GOP can confirm a Supreme Court justice in 2020 if it wants

To summarize the above article in brief:

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further!" [#CocaineMitch]

The best argument for President Donald Trump moves forward...

ChuckGrassley
@ChuckGrassley

The judic cmte just sent 8 more judges to the full Senate for final votes Total judges on floor now 49: 4 circuit + 43 district + 2 fed claims nominees Lots of work to do Senate shld stay in session til ALL 49 judges are CONFIRMED / work comes b4 campaigning


11:41 AM - 11 Oct 2018

On Brett Kavanaugh and the Accusation of Perjury:

My words will be in regular font.

Lying about slang under oath is still perjury.

You have to prove that he lied. Merely saying he did is not sufficient. Evasive and non-responsive answers, even if misleading, are not perjury.

Lying about not drinking under age is perjury. He was 17 the summer in question and that summer the drinking age was raised to 21. He lied about what the law was.

He said the law was 18 for most of his time in high school and was 18 in DC for all of his time in high school. All of that was true; ergo, no lie involved.

He lied when he said that he didn't go to the types of gatherings with the people Ford mentioned.

"Types of gatherings"? That is very vague phrasing by you. I could accuse you of lying by the same standard you are accusing Kavanaugh of lying. But then I happen to know that evasive answers even ones intended to mislead are not perjury.

Small gathering with Mike Judge and PJ is on his calendar for July 1.

Since your prior comment was very vague, its not possible to say for sure that it correlates with the one above.

He lied about not living near the country club when he lived closer to it than Ford.

Terms like "near" and "far" are far too imprecise to be involved in a charge of perjury. You could feasibly claim Kavanaugh was being evasive or even disingenuous. However, none of that constitutes perjury.

A lie under oath is perjury

Nope, its not that simple. Perjury to use one definition of the term I have seen is "the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry." You would have to prove several things with a charge of perjury including:

1) The testimony under oath was given that was proven false.{1}

2) The person giving the testimony made the proven false testimony wilfully.{2}

3) The point in question would have to be material to the inquiry.{3}

Nothing you have posted about Kavanaugh above meets the burden of proof for a probable perjury charge.

Notes:

{1} This has to be proven, not merely asserted.

{2} If there was not a wilful giving of false testimony or if the false testimony was given under duress, it would not be perjury.

{3} If the point is not proven to be material to the inquiry, again perjury would not apply.

Cardinal Ouellet Writes Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò

As I have suspected all along!

"...It is false to present the measures taken against him as 'sanctions' decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis. After reviewing the archives, I note that there are no documents in this regard signed by either Pope, nor a note of an audience of my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, which would have given a mandate to the archbishop emeritus McCarrick to live a private life of silence, with the rigor of canonical penalties..."

Click here to read the rest.

Briefly...

So #DukeLaKavanaugh is going to be FBI investigated for a 7th time? Fine. I want an FBI investigation opened on Christine Blasey Ford and Michael "Pimp Train" Avanatti's client as well. I want to see ALL of Dr. Ford's calendars, every bit of her wiped social media accounts subpoenaed, the permit for the door she claimed she told her husband she needed in 2012 because of her presumed trauma, every scrap of her therapists notes subpoenaed, her therapist and husband subpoenaed along with her parents and siblings to testify with sworn affidavits, and everything else that goes into an FBI investigation. I also want her charged with perjury if it is found she lied during her testimony previously. I also want Senator Dianne Feinstein cited for contempt and investigated as well.

Fair is fair!

Points to Ponder:

"I have to admit I find the outrage over Kavanaugh's polemical tone from people already convinced of his guilt to be weird.

I can't picture any circumstances yesterday under which people so convinced would have said 'Aw, it's too bad he's an evil raping alcoholic--because he really has the judicial temperament for the job'." [Dale Price]