I am disturbed by some info I have just come across regarding a recent (16/12) Executive Order issued by Obama that exempts Interpol from operating in the US without being subject to the Constitution & its Bill of Rights, in particular the Fourth Amendment. The bottom line of my blog, as someone put the matter on the WorldNetDaily site:
"But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren't convinced.
"'By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?'"
A little background.
During Obama's run for the presidency, the Right in general began to look deeper into his background. They found some disturbing things. Some are widely known about: his association - for years - with his fiery pastor; and something of a link with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, of Weathermen infame. Some are lesser known about. One of those bits is a tape of a telephone conversation with a US pastor and Obama's paternal step-grandmother in Kenya, who seemed to affirm that he had been born in that country, and that in point of fact, she had been present at his birth. But where I want to go with this blog is to another lesser-known bit of backround: the tape of a radio show interview in Chicago with Obama while he was an Illinois senator. In the course of the i/v he commented on the Constitution - how it was primarily about what the federal government can't do to the citizenry; but what would be better, would be what it not only can, but should, do FOR the citizenry. The i/v didn't go into any further detail about his thoughts on that subject. But it highlights one of the concerns of the Right: that he is a socialist in spirit and sentiment; and may well not be above bending the law a little to accomplish his desired ends (as 'liberals' are notorious for doing, in regarding the Constitution as 'a living document', subject to interpretation, not by 'original intent' perspectives, but by an attitude of 'broad construction').
And now, whilst in that office of major prestige and power, he quietly amends by Executive Order one issued by Reagan during his term in the office, which specifically did not exempt Interpol from constitutional oversight when operating in this country.
Why is this little matter important?
See above. Especially in the context, eg, of the possibility that Obama might want to keep some information about his background from the US public. Take questions about his passport, or passports (a subject that would naturally involve Interpol). There are serious questions about his eligibility, which include questions regarding what nationality he traveled to Pakistan under years ago, ie, was he traveling under Indonesian citizenship. He might also have been traveling under the British citizenship he inherited from his father; and so on, question upon question, as to who, really, is Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro. All of this goes to his eligibility to be president of the US - and to have run for that august office in the first place.
Questions, that are not helped when it turns out that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party did not do a proper check of his credentials, as it were. To be as understanding as possible in the matter: It might just have been an assumption, that he couldn't have gotten as far as running for the job if he WEREN'T eligible. But since the office of the president of the US - and the office of vice president- require a more specific level of citizenry than other elected offices, that is a terribly irresponsible oversight, if that is in fact the case.* Although there are factors involved that make it look as though that is too positive a spin on the matter - that someone of high responsibility in the Democratic Party camp in fact knew there might be some question here. And a decision was made to simply try to sneak the matter by the American people.
The philosophy of ends justifying means.
So, the upshot is that there is considerable question about Obama's eligibility, and his stonewalling about authorizing the release of his original, vault-copy birth certificate has not helped matters any. And nor has his refusal likewise to authorize release of other personal documents, like his school records (did he apply for financial support as a foreign student?) - and his passport. Or passports.
About which there is some serious question. Involving secret changes after the fact. And accesses to his State Department file regarding the matter, which involve the death of one investigator.
The people, in short, have 'a right to know' - to know all about the man who has been elected to the highest office in the land.
Possibly under false pretences.
With a particular political slant, as an agenda, that can be called, in a word: socialism.
A Change that the American people haven't really voted on.
* The difference is in the legal definition of a "natural born citizen", which requires the person to have been born on US soil of US citizen parents. Note the plural. It was a clear understanding of definition at the time of the ratification of the US constitution. The Founders of the fledgling republic did not want persons occupying those offices who might have divided loyalties (particularly to England, at the time).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Re: ""natural born citizen", which requires the person to have been born on US soil of US citizen parents."
That is simply not true. The original meaning of Natural Born was simply "born in the country." And, since Obama was born in Hawaii, he qualifies. That is why all 365 Electoral votes that he won on Nov. 4, 2008 went to him, and why the Congress confirmed his election unanimously. Because he is clearly and obviously a Natural Born Citizen.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Re: "Some are lesser known about. One of those bits is a tape of a telephone conversation with a US pastor and Obama's paternal step-grandmother in Kenya, who seemed to affirm that he had been born in that country..."
SHE never said any such thing. In fact, Obama's paternal step-grandmother said that he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya. She did so right after the question: "Whereabouts was he born?"
Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site. Be sure to listen for at least five minutes until the question is asked. (http://obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3)
If it is too difficult to listen to the complete tape, here is a transcript (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf).
There have been NO official documents from Kenya (numerous forgeries, however) that say that Obama was born in Kenya, and the only organization to have claimed that there are documents “sealed” in Kenya is WND. Its reports have not been confirmed by anyone. (And it would be easy to confirm because all you have to do is to find out if there are files which area sealed). There are hundreds of journalists in Kenya, and the fact that there were sealed files would be news.
Moreover, IF a child had been born in Kenya and subsequently came to the USA, there would be US documents showing that the trip took place. That is because if a child were born in Kenya, she or he would have to have either a US visa on a British passport or be issued its own US passport while in Kenya. IF either of those took place, there would still be US records in the US embassy in Kenya and in the US State Department in Washington, and they would have been found by now, and they have NOT been found.
All the allegations of Obama’s birth abroad were checked out by the McCain campaign, and they found that there were no facts. No facts at all. (http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors)
It is strange to believe that Obama’s mother even left Hawaii during pregnancy. Pregnant women rarely traveled long distances in 1961 because of the fear of stillbirths. Moreover, in 1961, to travel to Africa required a Yellow Fever shot, which is very bad during pregnancy.
smrstrauss:
Thank you for your comments.
(1) On the NBC issue, the best single source I can refer you to for research on the matter is: puzo1.blogspot.com, of Mario Apuzzo, Esq (see esp. Dec. 14 'New Ad...', and its link, under "natural born Citizen" to his of Sept. 8, 'The Natural Born Citizen Clause of our U.S. Constitution requires...' etc.
I encourage you to enter into a debate with him on the matter. It could be enlightening for all concerned.
As for comments by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Orrin G. Hatch on the matter: Simply saying something is so doesn't make it so, especially w/ legalese issues.
I doubt seriously that either of them researched the matter much before making their comments. There is extensive historical literature on the subject. It is not to be tossed off lightly. (For example, the requirement ONLY relates to the offices of the President and Vice President. All other officers of the republic can be simple citizens.)
(2) On the birth location & passport issues:
(a) Thank you for the link. I will listen to it. I have listened to it before, but the copy I heard only went up to a point, where she replied a couple of times 'Yes' to having been at his birth. I have heard since that later in the i/v she corrected herself on the issue; and that could possibly have been because she was being coached by then, not having realized the ramifications of what she was saying. Anyway, yes I will take the time to listen to the whole thing.
But it also brings up the fact that there is another radio i/v where the pastor refers to Obama having been born in his country - Kenya - being a great thing, and his 'home' is already being a shrine of sorts. I'm sorry I don't have that link; perhaps it will come up under a Google search.
(b) The passport issue is a curious one. Somewhere in my files (read: piles) I have a transcript of the report of a private investigator hired to ferret out what info he could regarding Obama's birth and his passport. It turns out that BO's file in the State Department has been tampered with, one, and two, someone involved in the matter ended up shot in his car. So there are issues regarding his passport, or passports, as well. (He must have had a number of them over the years, esp. considering that he traveled to Pakistan at a time that it wasn't a simple matter to use a U.S. passport to do so.)
Plus his refusal to let his school records be released to the public: What does he have to hide? is the question it all brings up.
All of which is by way of saying that I'm sorry, but there are still substantive issues here regarding BO's past; and they must be cleared up, in the interests of legality and the rule of law.
And I am happy to look at anything else you come up with regarding these issues. For I have no axe to grind, in this, as in other matters I blog on, except that of a truthseeker. But I will not rest until those truths come out, for the public to make decisions therefrom.
I will first discuss the Constitutional issue, second discuss the facts.
Re: “ (1) On the NBC issue, the best single source I can refer you to for research on the matter is: puzo1.blogspot.com, of Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”
I naturally read Apuzzo, my great and distinguished opponent. Unfortunately, unlike you, he has stopped publishing my comments in total, which makes it difficult to debate him.
However, let me say that Apuzzo is very much in the minority on this issue, yet he asserts (in a fantasy land, I believe) that he can get five Supreme Court votes for his opinion. If Senators Graham and Hatch, and the Wall Street Journal, and 365 electors (most of whom are lawyers) and all the members of Congress (most of whom are lawyers) all consider that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen due to having been born in Hawaii, then it is extremely unlikely that Apuzzo will get five votes. He might not get even four votes to call the case.
Here's an example of how unpopular the view is even among birthers. The so-called "Birther Bill," which would make all future candidates for president show their place of birth, does not require them to prove that their parents were US citizens.
The argument that Natural Born’s original meaning simply means “born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats” is overwhelming. I have done dozens, scores, of searches on the words “Natural Born” in the writings of Adams, Hamilton, Madison, etc, and never have found one that can be interpreted as meaning “two citizen parents” or “Natural Born as defined by Vattel” or even “excluding persons with dual nationality.”
Re: “(For example, the requirement ONLY relates to the offices of the President and Vice President. All other officers of the republic can be simple citizens.)”
Answer: Yes of course. But the term Natural Born is different from simple citizens. All other offices allow naturalized citizens. Natural Born citizens excludes naturalized citizens. It also excludes foreigners (obviously, since to be eligible candidates must be citizens).
But it does NOT say that it excludes the US-born children of foreigners. And, you know, since the framers were clearly counting on a lot of immigrants to this country, they would have said.
This brings up another objection to the Apuzzo approach. He is reading into the words Natural Born what he thinks the framers wanted. He feels that they were worried about foreign influence (which is true with regard to governments), and he also feels that the obvious limits of Natural Born that exclude naturalized citizens and foreigners is not sufficient protection. But (1) he has no proof of this, and the common meaning of Natural Born was at the time “born in the country;” and, (2) It is not permitted under the rules of Strict Construction (a Conservative goal) to read into words something that they do not specifically say. It would have been easy for the framers to write “no children of foreigners,” but they didn’t. If they didn’t, we cannot interpret that they would have but forgot.
Apuzzo’s answer to this is argument is muddled. He has said from time to time that the framers did not have to write the words “excluding the children of foreigners” or in fact any further explanation of Natural Born because the words were so well-known that they do not require it. But, in fact, the meaning of the words Natural Born used in dozens of quotations by the leaders of the early USA always meant “born in the country.” The writers of the Constitution were lawyers, and when they used the words “Natural Born,” they were not thinking of Vattel (who didn’t use Natural Born anyway; it was not used in a translation of Vattel until well after the Constitution). They were thinking of the common law, in which it always meant “born in the country.”
For example, here is one use of Natural Born Citizen, written in the USA about a decade after the Constitution:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
In other words, since there was no naturalization before the Constitution, the people who resided in the states were either those born in the states or aliens. And the term for born in the states was Natural Born. Natural Born was the term for Native Born in those days. Native Born was used rarely. Natural Born was used all the time, and it always meant “born in the country.”
The quotation was from St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings, which was published in 1803. As late as World War I, men who registered for the draft were asked whether they were citizens, and if they were, whether they were Naturalized or Natural Born. What did Natural Born mean? Could it have meant “born to two citizen parents?” No because there are only two categories, naturalized and natural born. If it meant “born to two citizen parents,” there would have to be three categories: naturalized, native born, and natural born. But the context clearly shows that Natural Born was a synonym for Native Born.
Here is another example of the use of Natural Born. William Marcy, who was Secretary of State to President Franklin Pierce was asked in a letter to the New York Times in 1854 whether a child born in Connecticut of two foreign parents is a US citizen. Marcy replies immediately that the child is a Natural Born Citizen, not for purposed of running for president, but simply because THERE IS NO QUESTION IN HIS MIND that the meaning of Natural Born is simply “born in the USA,” and Connecticut is part of the USA. ((Here is the reference, since it is in photographic form, it is impossible to clip sections from it http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B06E2DC153DE034BC4851DFB566838F649FDE)
Marcy also concludes that since the child was a Natural Born Citizen, he is even eligible to run for president. This you may disagree with, but you cannot disagree that Marcy firmly believed (as did virtually everyone at the time) that Natural Born simply meant “born in the country.”
The key ruling from the Supreme Court is Wong Kim Ark. That is a six-to-two ruling, and there were no concurring votes, all six justices support everything in the ruling, and it said:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
What is the meaning of Natural Born in this quotation? It can only be “born in the country.” Also, notice there are no exceptions, EVERY child born in England, the colonies or the USA is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats). If EVERY CHILD, then even children with dual nationality are Natural Born Citizens.
The idea that Dual Nationality can affect Natural Born status is a particularly weak one. It implies that even though the meaning of Natural Born was EVERY child born in the country some children whose parents' countries had certain laws should be deprived of the capabilities of all the other children. To think that is to think that a foreign law has impact on the capabilities of US-born children. That weakens our sovereignty because it implies that a foreign law has such sweeping impact that it can affect even which children can grow up to be president.
(2) I don't care whether his case is "unpopular" or not. I care whether it's factual.
(3) Is it all moot anyway?
* Under the U.S, law at the time, regardless of where Obama was actually born, his mother apparently couldn't confer the proper citizenship on him. Between 1952 and 1986, the law said she would have had to be 19 yrs old to do that, not 18 (5 years after the age of 14).
* Apologies in my article: It was not a Kenyan pastor who said that Obama had been born there; it was the Kenyan ambassador. It's on a YouTube audio link from 'Mike In the Morning' out of WRIF in Detroit, where they called 'his Excellency Peter Ogego (sp.?) in Kenya to congratulate them on Obama's election, and got him to say, about the president-elect (NOT his father, as some have claimed), regarding his birthplace there, that it was "already an attraction...already well known". Now, the ambassador could perhaps not realize what actually he was saying, or was led to say. But he said it.
* A Kenyan paper printed, back at the time of Obama's run for the Senate, the headline: 'Kenyan-born Obama all set for U.S. Senate'.
And speaking of that election:
* During a debate with Alan Keyes, Keyes referred to him as 'not a natural born citizen', to which Obama replied: "So what? I'm not running for the President. I'm running for the Senate."
Some would say, around about now: Case closed. But I do know, and accept, that you have some good points. I would just like your response to some of these.
smrstrauss:
I lost the first part of my reply. Grr. Here 'tis again (approx)
(1) I encourage you to read Apuzzo's Sept. 8 article on the NBC clause. He makes some good points.
* He refers to Madison's notes at the Founding.
* "The meaning of a 'natural born Citizen' as expressed by Vattel, including that both parents of the child must be citizens at the time of the child's birth in order to make the child a 'natural born Citizen', was carried forward in American history following the Founding. The standard provided by Vattel has not changed in our jurisprudence and is still valid today as it was during the Founding. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment has not changed the meaning of a 'natural born Citizen'. Legislative activity by the early Congresses provides insight into the question of whether Vattel required one or two parents to be citizens. There are Congressional acts that were passed after the Constitution was adopted that give us insight into what the Framers of the Constitution meant by 'natural born Citizen.'..." (p. 5)
"Subsequent Supreme Court cases have stated that in interpreting the Constitution, we must look to the common law that the Framers accepted at the time of the Founding. There is strong historical evidence that the Framers in constituting the new Constitutional Republic rejected the English common law and accepted the new federal common law which emanated from the law of nations. On this subject, see my article included at this blog entitled, the Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is. Indeed, as we will see below, our Supreme Court adopted that definition when defining a 'natural born Citizen' and thereby incorporated it into U.S. federal common law.
"The definition and two-parent requirement has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and other courts in the cases of The Venus...Shanks v. Dupont...Scott v. Sandford...Minor v. Happersett...Ex parte Reynolds...United States v. Ward...Wong Kim Ark...and Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam...It has also been confirmed by renowned legislators, including Senator Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution." (pp. 7-8)
As for the Wong Kim Ark decision:
"(The decision) did not address what an Article II 'natural born Citizen' is. Rather, the Supreme Court there gave a new, divergent, and incorrect interpretation of the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and vetoed the will of the People and their Legislature to declare Wong a U.S. 'citizen' under the unique circumstances of that case. While the case did approvingly cite Minor v. Happersett, since the case only dealt with what is a Fourteenth Amendment 'citizen', the case cannot in any event be used to explain what the Founders meant by Article II's 'natural born Citizen' clause." He goes on, interestingly (and speaking of 'strict constuctionism'): "Justice Antonin Scalia, during his address to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention...gave three reasons in ascending order (the last being the most compelling) which would serve justification for overturning a prior case: how wrong was it, i.e., was it blatantly and malicious improperly decided; how well has the public accepted the case; and did the decision cast the Court as a policy maker rather than an interpreter of the law. Given that the Wong Court did not give Congress and the Executive the wide deference that they deserve in exercising its immigration and naturalization powers...and the Scalia factors, the Wong decision is a prime candidate for reversal." (p. 11)
A matter of judicial taste, surely. But there is a solid point here, about not overturning the rule of law - of not taking the law lightly; of not bending it to suit one's ends. Apuzzo is trying to affirm the law in the matter; not popular sentiment.
As to that point:
Do you seriously believe that Obama was born in Kenya?
If so, how do you account for the child getting from Kenya to the USA without USA DOCUMENTS that show that he was ever in Kenya?
As I wrote before, to get a child from Kenya to the USA requires some kind of US travel document, such as a US visa on a British passport or the change to his mother’s passport while she was in Kenya.
You say: “I have a transcript of the report of a private investigator hired to ferret out what info he could regarding Obama's birth and his passport. It turns out that BO's file in the State Department has been tampered with, one, and two, someone involved in the matter ended up shot in his car.”
The reports said that the files had been intruded into. They did NOT say that the files had been changed. It would probably be impossible to change them since the files that were intruded into were electronic and based on physical paper documents, the originals of which are still stored in the files. In any case, there is no report that these files were changed (and, remember, this event took place while the Republicans were in office).
More importantly, the files that I am referring to are NOT passport files. They are files of an application to issue a US visa on a British passport for Obama to get him to the USA. Or, files of applications to change his mother’s passport while in Kenya to include him to get him to the USA. Those are not passport files. Yet, without a US visa or a US passport that included Obama, either issued in Kenya in 1961, there is no way that he could get to the USA.
The absence of US documents showing that Obama traveled from Kenya to the USA in 1961 coincides with the absence of Kenyan records showing that (1) Obama’s mother was ever in Kenya, and (2) that Obama was born in Kenya. There are, however, repeated forgeries of the “Kenya birth certificate.” The most recent forgery, which many birthers continue to swear is true, was “obtained” by a fellow called Lucas Smith, who just happens to have been convicted of forgery in the past. Many birthers, who know of this past background, continue to claim that it is true, despite the extensive debunking done by WND (http://beartracks.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/1756/).
WND itself, however, is hardly reliable. It has claimed that there are Obama birth files in Kenya that are “sealed,” but there has been no confirmation of these allegations by any other source. Not only is there no confirmation that there are files, there is no confirmation that Kenya ever sealed any files. In most countries, the records of who arrive at the airports are public documents. If Obama’s mother had ever arrived in Kenya, this would have been shown in such records. The birthers explain the absence of such records as Kenya having “sealed” or stolen the records. But there is no confirmation for this, and if it were true, it would be easy for anyone to confirm by simply asking to see the 1961 airport records, and if they were missing or the request denied, reporting that fact.
There are freelance journalists and private investigators in Kenya who could do such a search, but no one has. The absence of any confirmation is suspicious.
Birthers say that Kenya is part of a plot, presumably a world-wide plot that includes the officials in Hawaii and included Obama’s parents. But such an extensive plot is difficult to believe. It is particularly difficult to believe that the officials in Hawaii are members of this plot. After all, they are members of a Republican governor’s administration.
Now let’s touch on the Kenyan grandmother again. To be sure, she may have said one thing. In this case, it was “Yes,” and then said another thing. If she did, then which of the two was right? When someone simply says “Yes,” and there is a subsequent change, it is important to know whether she understood the question. In this case, we do not know with certainty whether she was asked “Were you present in Kenya when he was born?” or, “were you present when he was born in Kenya?” Since the question went through translation, we do not know what she heard and what she replied Yes to.
But, it is true that she was present in Kenya when he was born, in Hawaii.
However, her answer is absolutely clear to the far more simple question: “Whereabouts was he born?”
To that, the clear answer, shown by the tape, and this transcript (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf). If you say that she was under pressure on the answer to this question and hence lied, I ask, how do you know? And, why should she lie? And, if you continue to insist, then all that we can do is throw out the grandmother statement completely.
This is a good thing to do because, even if she had said it (and she didn’t), and in fact even if the Ambassador of Kenya had said it (and he too says that he did not understand the question), it still would not disprove the legal birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (who are members of a Republican governor’s administration.)
Now, as you say, there continue to be questions about other things. Why didn’t Obama show his college records? Did he travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport? Did he lose his US citizenship while he was in Indonesia? Was the Certification of Live Birth, even if it truly states the fact that Obama was born in Kenya, forged?
All of these continue to rumble around, and some are fairly silly. The latest I have been debating with other birthers is the alleged forgery. They say that the officials in Hawaii have never confirmed the authenticity of the document, and never confirmed that they sent a COLB to Obama. They have not, for that matter confirmed that Hawaii is a USA State and that they are officials of the state.
All that they had to do is to confirm that the COLB accurately reflects the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, which they did. I will quote them later. Since this shows that he was born in Hawaii, there is no reason to forge the COLB, and hence it was not forged. If these statements are not true, then they are lying, and why should they lie? (Again, they are members of a Republican governor’s administration.)
Next, the college records. To think that the records are important reflects ONLY the concern that Obama received financial aid as a foreign student.
If he had a lousy academic record, or lived in a sorority house (and the lawsuit demanded he show his college residences), he would still be eligible to be president. If he used a name other than Obama, he still would be eligible (But Occidental has said that he was always registered as Obama).
However, we know that Obama was NOT a foreign student; both the US State Department and the Indonesian government have said that he was never a citizen of Indonesia. The State Department comment is at (http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6, and look for the answer at 40.) The Indonesian government will tell anyone who calls their embassy. The Indonesian Embassy in Washington is at 202: 775-5200, and ask for the Press Officer. He will also, if you are interested, discuss the myth that someone had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend public school in Indonesia.
I realize that there is a document on the Web that is an application to an Indonesian private school and that says that Obama was an Indonesian citizen. Does this mean that he was an Indonesian citizen? No, it means that the parents lied to get him into that school. (The application is not signed.)
The allegation about Pakistan is also false. Obama never had an Indonesia passport because he was never a citizen of Indonesia. But, then, how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981? It is alleged that Pakistan was on a “no travel list.” This claim is repeatedly made, but it is simply a lie. Pakistan was NOT on any “no travel list.” It was not difficult for any US citizen to visit Pakistan in 1981 (when it was a LOT more peaceful than now). US citizens were granted 30-day visas on arrival in Pakistan. So any US citizen could visit Pakistan for tourism, and Obama was one. (If you would like proof, there is a travel article in the New York Times in 1981 recommending that its readers visit Pakistan.)
What passport did Obama use? His US passport. We know that he had a US passport, which he used to travel from Indonesia to Hawaii to attend High School? How do we know that he did not have an Indonesian passport? Because (1) Indonesia says he did not have an Indonesian passport; (2) the US State Department says that he was never an Indonesian citizen; (3) To travel from Indonesia to the USA on an Indonesian passport requires a US visa on that Indonesian passport, the records of which would be still in the files of applications for US visas in Indonesia in that year, and which has not been found.
Going back. You said: “Plus his refusal to let his school records be released to the public: What does he have to hide? is the question it all brings up.”
Have you seen the school record of Clinton, Pappy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford or Clinton? (Bush’s record was published, but NOT by Bush. It was leaked to the New Yorker by a source at Yale.) Since these presidents did not release their records, does Obama, who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, not releasing the records mean anything?
I have already demolished the idea that he was a foreign student, since he was never an Indonesian citizen. There remains the possibility that he did not do well academically (unlikely since he did get into Harvard Law). If this is true, it is reason to vote against him. It has no impact on his Natural Born Citizen status.
Here are the statements made by the officials in Hawaii. Quotes:
“Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
"Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying." (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)
End quotes
Notice that this is a flat statement. It does not hedge by saying that the document MAY show that Obama was born in Hawaii. It says that the statement of Fukino says that the document shows. One reason is because the original must say that he was born in Hawaii, another is that in 1961—when Obama was born—a foreign birth certificate could not be filed in Hawaii. That was not allowed until 1982.
This statement does not allow wiggle room that there are many different kinds of birth certificates or that, as alleged, a person could obtain a Hawaii birth certificate with the statement of one parent and no confirmation of place of birth. It simply says YES, that the records that Fukino has personally seen MEAN that Obama was born in Hawaii. Thus none of the other kind of BCs, those that are alleged to have ambiguity in their meaning, could be the document in the files. Only a clear, unambiguous document is in the file, and it says “born in Hawaii.”
Then whey doesn’t Hawaii release it? Possibly because they believe that having said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii is sufficient. If not, remember that the government of Hawaii is under a Republican governor, and perhaps she doesn’t mind that this issue continues. In any case, the fact that Hawaii does not release the original does NOT mean that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. If you would like to see the original, as I would, petition the governor of Hawaii. It will show, as the officials have repeatedly said, that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, it is your right to petition her to release it.
But, even if it isn’t released, he was born in Hawaii, as the official birth certificate, the notices in the two Hawaii newspapers (which were sent out by the government of Hawaii in those days for births in Hawaii, and not for births outside of Hawaii), and the repeated statements by the officials in Hawaii confirm.
Also, there is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 (because she wrote her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a child being born to a woman named Stanley [http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html]).
Re: “the Supreme Court there gave a new, divergent, and incorrect interpretation of the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and vetoed the will of the People and their Legislature to declare Wong a U.S. 'citizen' under the unique circumstances of that case.”
To be sure it is not an Article II case (only a presidential case could be), but the ruling says very clearly that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.
As for it being “new, divergent and incorrect,” the rulings of the US Supreme Court are the law of the land, and in this case the ruling was six-to-two (one did not vote.)
Re: “Under the U.S, law at the time, regardless of where Obama was actually born, his mother apparently couldn't confer the proper citizenship on him. Between 1952 and 1986, the law said she would have had to be 19 yrs old to do that, not 18 (5 years after the age of 14).”
You are in error. That simply referred to birth outside of the USA. If Obama was born outside of the USA, that law MIGHT apply (it was amended retroactively, so it might not). But Obama was born IN the USA, and as we know under the Constitution EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats is (1) a US citizen, and (2) Natural Born—which itself is just a synonym for “born in the country.”
Re: “Now, the ambassador could perhaps not realize what actually he was saying, or was led to say. But he said it.”
And John McCain said “the Iraq-Pakistan border.” There is no border between Iraq and Pakistan. The Ambassador has said that he did not understand the question (which is just as likely as McCain forgetting that there were a couple of countries between Iraq and Pakistan.) Even if the Ambassador said it. Even if he believed it, it would have no legal weight to overcome the (1) lack of official Kenyan documents (2) the presence of USA official Hawaii documents showing birth in Hawaii; (3) the confirmation of the officials in Hawaii repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii; (4) the impossibility of getting a Kenyan-born child from Kenya to Hawaii without a US travel document such as a US visa on his passport.
Re: “* A Kenyan paper printed, back at the time of Obama's run for the Senate, the headline: 'Kenyan-born Obama all set for U.S. Senate'.”
So, a Kenyan newspaper made a mistake. Here is the far more reliable Wall Street Journal: “
Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
Re: “ During a debate with Alan Keyes, Keyes referred to him as 'not a natural born citizen', to which Obama replied: "So what? I'm not running for the President. I'm running for the Senate."
That actually is a rather smart answer. He was running for Senate. As you have pointed out, you do not have to be a Natural Born Citizen to run for Senate, even naturalized citizens are accepted. Keyes appears not to have known this. He appears to think that you have to be Natural Born to run for Senate. Obama thus scored some points by showing that he knew the Constitution, and that Keyes appears not to, at least in that situation.
In any case, he WAS running for Senate, and for that he did not have to be Natural Born. He could have replied “I am natural born,” but that would have brought up the fact that he was born in Hawaii, and not in Illinois, and that might have lost him a few votes.
IN any case, he did not say “I am not a Natural Born Citizen.’ If he had, we would have known about it, and since “Natural Born” simply means “born in the country” under our law, then he is.
The Wong Kim Ark case will not be overturned, and the fact that all the Americans writing at the time used “Natural Born” to mean “born in the country” is not overturned by Vattel, a Swiss monarchist, saying something about “indignes” are born in the country of two citizen parents. (Indignes was the word used in the translation of Vattel before the Constitution, not “Natural Born.”)
Thanks for your responses, more or less as I requested. But please don’t take me for a fool, smrstrauss. To say no one asked for the school records “of Clinton, Pappy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford or Clinton [sic]” is to be disingenuous. Does his not authorizing release of his school records mean anything? Yes, it does. THERE WAS AND IS AN ISSUE HERE. We know where Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter and Ford et al were born, and of what parentage; it was all a matter of public record. For this campaign: All of McCain’s birth material was laid out; with Obama, we were and are asked to buy a pig in a poke. “I have here, in this bag,” a COLB, and an apparently wonky one at that. What an insult to the American people. They have a right to have this whole matter cleared up.
As for the COLB itself: Besides evidence of its having been faked, the Hawaiian authorities have never referred to it for specific confirmation of its validity. They have referred, both tilmes they have commented on this matter, to something still on file. The first time the original, vault-copy bc was referred to, the authorities used evasive, legalistic, slippery language. Why. The second time, the language was less ambiguous; I’ll give you that. But a ‘Yes’ to a question can posssibly mean different things, depending on what’s going on in the person’s head. As we have seen, presumably, with Obama’s paternal step-grandmother and the Kenyan ambassador.
(As for that tape of his grandmother: I have now read the transcript all the way through that you provided. I’ll grant you that the ts seems to make it clear that there was misunderstanding involved. Score that one for your side. That still doesn’t let the Kenyan ambassador off the hook, or the reports of how the Kenyans feel about the matter. It also doesn’t explain why he didn’t let his maternal grandmother talk to the media when he broke off from his campaigning and visited her in Hawaii shortly before her death, to let her tell her side of this story, since the matter had become an issue by then. So - let’s see the original bc, and clear this whole thing up. As should have happened a long time ago. )
2) His Occidental-records ‘leak’ was proven to be false; his claimed Kenyan bc was a forgery: straw men. If he had authorized/would authorize the release of all of his records, this sort of thing could be cleared up immediately. He has not - and in point of fact, has issued an Executive Order putting his and all his administration’s private records off limits. Despite campaign calls for, and consequent promises of, transparency. Why.
3) The passport issue.
(a) You say that US citizens could, in fact, travel to Pakistan in the time period involved (‘81). That should be simple enough to check out (I don’t know why it hasn’t been, among the Internet sources that still call that particular matter into question; must be sloppy research); so if what you say is indeed true, I’ll give you that. So why doesn’t he authorize release of his passport file/visa etc. info, that this sort of thing can be checked out first hand? Again: What does he have to hide? And why has he done as stated above: made all such private records off limits via an EO?
Plus there is the recent curious business (as I mentioned in m blog) of his authorizing, by the issuance of another EO, Interpol to be free from constitutional oversight in operating in the country. Why?
There are a lot of Whys here. Not very wise, for a smart man. Which he undoubtedly is. Perhaps a little too smart; for his, and our, own good.
(b) How do you know what the record shows, to make the statements you make, about how, if his mother had gone to Kenya, and given birth to him there, and then traveled back to Hawaii soon after (to establish US citizenship for him, if possible, for his future life; whatever that would consist of, but it would certainly include the value of having such citizenship), it would show up in the record, and it hasn’t? Perhaps all you meant was that investigators would have come up with that info by now, and they haven’t, so...it doesn‘t exist? How do we KNOW, when there has been so much cover-up going on, and his passport files and original bc are so off limits, generating suspicions.
I’ve heard on the Internet that Michelle, through her contacts from her somewhat unsavoury past (needing further exploration; as down the rabbit hole we go, further into this murky matter, this seemingly limitless hole of strange goings-on, in America, In Our Time), has had a hand in finagling with his passport file as well. All of this speculation engendered by one thing, and one thing only: his lack of transparency. (More on which, see below.)
4) You have your take on what the founding Fathers understood a ‘NBC’ to mean - or what Wong brought to the table - and Apuzzo has his. So far, I still think he has a legitimate point in this crucial legalistic matter. And simply saying, over and over, “’natural born citizen’ simply means ‘born in the country’”, doesn‘t make it so - and in point of fact, makes it sound suspect. It’s like the ‘health’ authorities who hammer away, over and over, with their mindless mantrum about vaccines, that they are “safe and effective...safe and effective...safe and effective”. It’s a con, a trick. So please stop saying that, endlessly. I was almost going to say, at this point, “So lighten up with that device, or move on”, but I’ll try to keep open to our exchanges. But make it easier for me, please. Take on Apuzzo's points directly. Anything.
Anyway, to finish my point: You make it sound as though the Framers of the Constitution had no ‘take’ on the definition of an NBC other than how you describe that definition. ‘Tain’t true. There is a legitimate issue here, that deserves its day in court - that needs to move to that arena. The court of public opinion is one thing. But this needs to get into a proper court of law, for a proper legal hearing on it. For - hopefully - the whole truth to out. In this, as in other such important matters; of state, and life in America. Where right now, Obama is treating the people like mugs. It’s unseemly.
One last point (for now): You asked, Do I “seriously” believe that he was born in Kenya? My answer: Since BO won’t level with the American people on any of this: anything is possible.
Your man is being undercut terribly by speculation, caused by his lack of transparency, and especially because he invoked it, to be a signature trait of his administration. What hypocrisy. Which is not a very appealing trait in a person.
He must come clean, about all this. Everything. Full stop. Or his presidency will be fatally compromised. Which is not only not good for him. It’s not good for the country. And that state of affairs must not stand. It’s damaging to the Republic.
Or is that the idea. To create a Crisis, for ‘Change’ to come about that way??
And who are YOU, anyway? You’re sounding more and more like a hired hand, paid to pa-troll the Internet, trying to shout down any opposition to The Boss. If so, know that the tactic doesn’t work with me. Stick to a legitimate debate on the facts, or move on. This is a truth-seekers’ arena here; not a shooting gallery, for trolls to try to dominate.
See you in court; so to speak. Shoot down points with facts, not legalistic hyperbole.
BORN IN THE USA?
Newspapers' birth announcements: So what?
Critics rely on routine published statements in Honolulu
Posted: January 07, 2010
12:30 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Honolulu
Contrary to the claims of critics of citizens who demand Barack Obama produce evidence of his presidential eligibility, newspaper birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 did not necessarily indicate a baby was born in the state.
As WND reported, Glenn Beck ridiculed the so-called birther movement on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday, pointing to identical birth announcements published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution.
Beck, and two colleagues, mocked "birthers" for purportedly believing a wild conspiracy in which Obama's parents, knowing he would someday be president, "preemptively" collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii.
But the birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii. Any parent presumably would see the benefit of securing American citizenship for their child.
Further, the information in the two newspapers would be identical not only because the papers drew from the same source but because they had an agreement to share classified advertising.
(Story continues below)
etc. The article goes on to clarify that Hawaii law allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the DoH and, upon simplistic proof, be given a COLB. His grandparents could have applied for that, for him/their daughter. There's also some question about the addresses involved. It's a murky mess.
smrstrauss:
A bit of an apology. On reflection, I was just put off by some of your 'tactics', that I took as silly in a dialogue, a give-and-take, an uncovering of truth. To argue, eg, that the COLB wasn't a fake simply BECAUSE there was no need for it to be so (rather than look at the case, and debate the merits of the case), seemed to me a sort of logical fallacy, which was insulting my intelligence. And to come back at me/my point about something by quoting the WSJ - whose editorial position was merely based on one of the pieces of 'evidence' centrally in question, not on something more substantive - I felt was absurd, found myself taking irritated exception to, as again, insulting. I have realized that we were approaching this 'discussion' from two different perspectives.
I realize that you were approaching it purely from the perspective of being totally adversarial - of a lawyer, arguing his client's case, and throwing everything you could at the prosecution, kitchen sink and all. Whereas I wanted this space to be used as a forum, for exchanging points of view, information, etc. I was, then, expecting more from you than you obviously were interested in giving to it.
Different perspectives, then. But you get, I trust, that that's the sort of approach I prefer here: a forum for an exchange of views; not purely adversarial attacking. What's the TRUTH behind points; not just who can score the most.
Substance. Substance.
And then there's the strange business of two different hospitals being put forward by various sources as his place of birth...mutter mutter, about this murky mess, that could have been cleared up long ago, if only.............
Unless there is significant evidence that Obama was born elsewhere than Hawaii, it is only logical to accept the official birth certificate of Hawaii that says that he was born in Hawaii. Moreover, the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor's administration, had twice said that the facts in the files show that he was born in Hawaii, and there is even a witness who recalls his being born in Hawaii.
If Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, it does not matter if the COLB was forged. It wasn't forged, there is no reason for it to be forged and only two guys who will not give their real names say that it is forged. But, if it were forged, and Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, then the fact that it was forged would not affect the situation in the least.
Forgery would be a crime, but it would not make Obama cease to be eligible. Moreover, who did it? Obama or someone else?
So, the forgery, which is unlikely to be true (after all, if it were true, wouldn't Hawii have taken some kind of action?) is of no importance. Only the place of birth is important, and that is proven by the official document, the confirmation of the Republican officials and the witness to be in Hawaii in 1961.
The "evidence" for Kenya is absurd. The Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.
Post a Comment