Reasoning ‘Kenyan Born’
Political correctness is the subversive tool of the enemy — that is already in the field.
It is reasonable to wonder why Obama’s bio would say such a thing. I am an author. Book agents always submit pitches and bios to me for approval before they are distributed. If my bio were to state that I was born in another country such as France, I would most certainly correct the bio to state that I was born in America. Thus, it is reasonable to question why a Harvard-educated man, who was and is meticulous in detail regarding his persona, would allow his bio to say he was “born in Kenya.”
It is reasonable to question such a document, but where is reason?
The bio stating Obama was “born in Kenya” can be one of the following:
a) Correct
b) Fabricated by Obama to create a mystique about himself
c) Simply a typo
Reason sounds an alarm about President Obama on all three accounts:
a) If it is correct, then our president is unconstitutionally elected.
Could it be that no one really wants to deal with this because it would be too difficult? If we become a nation that allows the precedent of breaking such a fundamental constitutional law, then our republic is surely doomed.
b) If it was fabricated, then we have a president who is elusive and dishonest.
Could it be that no one wants to deal with the fact our president fabricated his image with a lie; that he is mercurial? If “we the people” are too politically correct to investigate and highlight such traits, then our republic is surely doomed.
c) If it was simply a typo, then we have a president who is merely a front man.
Could it be that Obama is not willing to pay heed to the details of governing his own life? Then how can he pay heed to governing our country’s details? Could it be that Obama is just a front man who really has no desire to govern or deal with the “details” that a republic so desperately needs such as budgets and constitutional laws?
It is reasonable to question a bio of Obama that stated he was “born in Kenya.” It is unreasonable to not question it. The left is berating people who dare to consider the mystery of the bio, and the right is ignoring the implications of it in the name of political correctness or perhaps because it would just be too messy to unravel the truth.
There is that word, once again. Truth. Since when did truth become such a bother? Since when did reason become such an antiquated, unnecessary human attribute? Since the beginning of the end of republicanism.
It is reasonable to expect a candidate for the office of the president of the United States should provide validated documentation that he/she meets the minimum requirements for that office as specified in the Constitution of the United States. Such evidence should be formally presented to the public as a necessary part of the nominating process.
What is unreasonable is not to require such validation, but to assume someone meets the qualifications for that office without showing proof that they do meet the minimum requirements.
To not require such proof is to await the time in which some candidate runs for the office who does not meet the necessary requirements.
Hubbub —
It appears that an unqualified candidate (certainly not through voluntarily submission of documentation) is what has occurred in the 2008 election.
If anything that surprised me is that the “geniuses” who originated and maintained “campaign finance and election reform laws” did NOT require the production of proof of citizenship and natural born citizenship as required by the Constitution in order to hold federal offices.
So Janine Turner, the next time you are on Fox (Hannity or O’Reilly) please bring this subject up. I will bet they will shut you down before you complete a sentence. It is a shame but Fox has sold out and are now cowering in fear of Barack Hussein Obama. They will only go do far and they put the breaks on when crimes become the subject matter. Obama usurped the office and he has committed crimes in order to maintain his power position. It is as simple as that.
Tony is correct and I’m done with arrogant Oreilly giving them and Sharia a pass evey time. It feels like The Bildeberg Group is flexing it’s muscles and drowning religion out. No wonder GB left/got fired for telling the truth and stipl watch Hannity as the best of all. What can one expect from Murdoch and others as everyone is Coin Operated and value their very lives. Yes Obama has murdered many thousands for their sick gun control schemes. Obama is the Big Brother POTUS targeting innocent individuals for destruction just like the Adolphs ”liberals” truly are. It’s The Daily Kos sending a journalists contact/personal info to the Taliban to be marked for death. Fox is being dummed down cos they are silenced by fears and hate. How bad? Oakland Occupy is now protesting against Obama and Holder trying to steal our guns.
A badly worded and flawed article. The ‘Law of the Land’ does not require you to simply be BORN in America it requires you to be a NATURAL Born Citizen and that is a horse of a completely different colour. If the framers of the Constitution simply wanted ANYONE just BORN in the USA to be eligible to run for President they would have said so quite simply . But they didn’t they made a very clear distinction that ONLY those FIRST GENERATION Americans with Foreign born parents could become President then subsequently that ONLY NATURAL Born Citizens i.e. born in America of TWO CITIZEN parents would qualify. If they had not made that allowance for the FIRST generation of course then no one could have become President for many many years. However if they had considered that for FUTURE generations simply being born in America would make you a NATURAL born Citizen then there would have been no need whatsoever to differentiate between those FIRST generation Americans born in America of foreign parents and a NATURAL born Citizen at all.
So the whole question of where Obama was born is a RED HERRING. With a FOREIGN NATIONAL as a Father he is not and can never be a NATURAL Born Citizen no matter where he popped out.
Nice job avoiding the question. The three options remain. Which do you pick?
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”–Nice try Pragmatist. You get at least an ‘A’ for effort. Try reading the real thing next time.
Escondidosurfer Sorry if your reading comprehension is not up to much .I was not answering a question just pointing out that Obama is NOT a NATURAL Born Citizen and as such INELIGIBLE to be President.
davelnaf Writes.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”–Nice try Pragmatist. You get at least an ‘A’ for effort. Try reading the real thing next time.
As I just PROVED Obama is NOT a NATURAL Born Citizen and he could not possibly be a Citizen at the time of Adoption of this Constitution could he. Perhaps you too need to check your comprehension skills.
Obama…
…is NOT a “natural born” citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, “at birth.” The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama Sr. as, “a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
…is a “native-born,” 14th Amendment citizen because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii — assuming he was born in Hawaii . The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama as a “native-born citizen” on it’s website.
…is a “citizen” because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii — assuming he was born in Hawaii. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, all bets are off.
See: Right there on Obama’s own website, where it says, “The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate” — “The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a “native citizen of the United States of America.”
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Law Of Nations
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
The U. S. Constitution And The Law Of Nations
The defenders of Obama and his questionable eligibility routinely reject the influence of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations on United States law. However, the Law of Nations is an integral part of and referenced by the U. S. Constitution and court findings.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states, in part: “The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations;…”
Other references in the law:
“The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution.” — Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 — Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980
“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” — Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.)
Dickenson, “The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States…” — 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 26, 27 (1952)
“The plainest evidence that international law has an existence in the federal courts independent of acts of Congress is the long-standing rule of construction first enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall: “an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains ….” — The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 34, 67, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804), quoted in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 578, 73 S.Ct. 921, 926, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953)
“For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations” — Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 — Supreme Court 2004
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, “The law of nations, as understood by Justice Story in 1824, has not changed” — United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 — Supreme Court 1992
But Obama’s acolytes will argue none of this matters all day long — insisting that all one needs to be eligible is to be born in the USA.
It’s About Loyalty
The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.
At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE “presidents” in the Executive for “checks and balances.” They considered a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to “jump start” the newly-formed republic.
In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the “natural born citizen” clause for the office.
The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure “checks and balances,” the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”
The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
You proved absolutely nothing, other than your absolute lack of reading comprehension skills, and understanding of legal principles, as well as your peculiar insistence on placing foreign law above American law.
British citizenship law is all well and good. This is however the United States. We do not defer to British law on libel or gun ownership, there is no reason to defer to it on citizenship.
There is no functional legal distinction between native-born and natural-born. The two terms are absolutely synonymous in all American judicial rulings.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it reference “Vattel’s book, “The Law of Nations.”
Apparently it missed your notice, but there is a legal principle known as the “law of nations”, separate and distinct from Vattel’s book. Without an explicit naming of that book as the actual law of the Constitution, the general reference in Article I, Section 8 to admiralty law can only be interpreted as referring to the general principle and not a specific text. This is made particularly relevant since Vattel never actually details any actual offenses – no mention of pirates or piracy, and privateers are only referenced as to being unable to offload prisoners in neutral ports during war.
The other references you cite reinforce this, as they exclusively use “law of nations” uncapitalized, and unquoted, clearly demonstrating it is not a specific book being referred to but a legal principle.
Since the Constitution didn’t define this (at the time well-understood) term in detail, the proper method of interpreting it is something called “original intent.” Using that method, we find that Pragmatist is exactly, 100% correct, and you’re exactly, 100% wrong.
Except of course we do not.
Discussion is available regarding how Hamilton, who was not born in the U.S., would have qualified to be President, so clearly the original intent supports precisely what I said.
While SCOTUS has never ruled directly on the status of “natural born citizen,” it has given many opinions on the subject as seen in Minor v. Happersett (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html)
“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 [n6] 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,” [n7] 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
While they have never given a direct opinion specifically on the matter, this and other decisions give us a good indication on where the SCOTUS stance may lie if this issue were brought before that body.
There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.
Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born.
Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya.
Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.
Furthermore, the Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by the Education Laboratory School, attached as EXHIBIT “1”, did a several page article of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in the Star Bulletin, attached as EXHIBIT “2”, and this time, Maya states Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children.
Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen, attached as EXHIBIT “3”.
Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1966, when Obama was approximately five (5) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1967) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.
Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir (autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen.
Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”
Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2. The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.
Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration, attached as EXHIBIT “4”, in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record.
At the time Obama was registered the public schools * obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names of all family members.
Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence attached hereto supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien. Regardless of whether Obama was officially adopted, (which required a Court process), by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, or his birth was acknowledged (which only required the signing of a birth acknowledgement form), by Lolo Soetoro, one of which had to occur in order for Obama to have the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship status listed as “Indonesian”, in either and/or both cases Obama’s name was required to be changed to the Indonesian father’s name, and Obama became a natural citizen of Indonesia. This is proven by the school records in Jakarta, Indonesia showing Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian. Again, the registration of a child in the public schools in Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the Government Records on file with the Governmental Agencies.
The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.
In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely no way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever held such. Obama could have only become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship.
Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never Naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.
Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens.
Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1) Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record attached as Exhibit “4”.
“While SCOTUS has never ruled directly on the status of “natural born citizen,” it has given many opinions on the subject as seen in Minor v. Happersett”
Yes they have, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the case that people who want to redefine “natural-born” always want to skip over.
I don’t accept your premise, pragmatist, that ‘natural born’ means born to two American citizens.
My view of the Constitutional clause is that, at the moment of Declaration of Independence, all inhabitants of the US who were previously British citizens became citizens of the USA. From then on, ‘natural born’ meant those who were born in the territorial domain of the USA. Therefore, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born’ citizen.
After all, if this were not the case, then the legality of ‘anchor babies’, or babies born to non-Americans in the USA, who are by law, legally defined as American citizens, would not exist.
Where I disagree with you is your assumption that the presidential role requires that the applicant be born of two American citizens. I don’t see where it says that in the Constitution. It doesn’t refer to parental citizenship.And after all, since America is based on immigration and on individual merit, it would be a discriminatory clause to base your eligibility on your heritage.
There is absolutely no evidence that Vattel’s definition or the ‘Law of Nations’ was considered the valid definition in the US Constitution. If they had intended this – they would have said it. Nor can you define their ‘original intent’ as you, to be blunt, weren’t privy to it. We have to accept the words as they are.
You are absolutely correct – the issue of his birthplace deflects where the attention should be – his father was not a citizen. Too much time has been wasted on his birth certificate.
Nice list Pragmatist.
Except once again you wish to give supremacy to foreign law over American law.
American law is quite clear that citizenship may not be surrendered on behalf of a minor even by their parent. It can only be surrendered by a person on their own behalf once that person has come of age.
Indonesian does not mean squat in the U.S. in establishing the American citizenship of a person.
what a rude jerk you are.
Scrolled down to comments to make the exact same point. Funny how almost everyone ignores the true issue. Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements for the office, yet everyone is afraid to say it.
The problem is that natural born citizen has never been properly defined by legislation nor interpreted by the courts and it is high time that is rectified. Two common law principles are in play: jus solis and jus sanguinis.
The former is based on English common law. It basically says that a person born within the national boarder is a natural citizen of that country. The latter is based on French and Italian common law. It basically states that if one or more parents is a citizen of the nation, the that person is a natural born citizen.
A few clarifications have been codified in US Code over the centuries. As example, if a parent is in the employ of a foreign government (such as a diplomat), even if born on US soil, the child would not be considered a citizen — the concern is over divided loyalty. The naturalization process would be required to make that child a citizen. But a precise definition of natural born citizen has never been defined.
This is not the first time the natural born qualification for President has been called into question. It has occurred no less than 5 times in our history. However, this is the first time a candidate has refused to present documentation to resolve the issue. This is what makes Obabma’s qualification so suspicious — especially since his supposed “autobiographies” have admitted he was born in Kenya.
So either the Congress or the Supreme must clarify the definition and they must do it SOON.
Sorry, Pragmatist. That is a lie, and you know it.
A natural born citizen simply means a person who is a citizen at birth. Even if Obama were born in Kenya, he would be a natural born citizen due to his mothers citizenship.
Thank you for stating the matter so concisely and lucidly, Miss Turner.
If only our political class had a few members still capable of responding to the stirrings of conscience.
Pragmatist:
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Completely. Check out this article at Redstate where the author is going to great lengths, examining the actual legal history of the term “Natural born citizen” as applied throughout history in the U.S. and the English Common Law from which our law came.
http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/
It actually means someone born within the United States EVEN IF that person’s parents were not citizens. This was proven not only by written comments by various Founders (as detailed in the Redstate article) and by a New York court case, Lynch v. Clarke, from the first half of the 19th century, when a couple from Ireland had a baby girl born to them in New York. They themselves had not been naturalized, and then they returned to Ireland with the girl. When she grew up, she returned to the U.S., sued to get her share of the family estate in New York, and won the case. It is all in the Redstate article.
So, knowledge is power–and once you actually KNOW this history, you can stop with the “he has to be born IN the U.S. OF TWO American citizens” shtick that Birthers have been using.
Marco Rubio will be able to run for President on these terms, and so will Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal.
I wish Sheriff Joe Arpario every success in sending his two men to Hawaii to try to see the birth cert and all that. I think if an original exists, it will show the president’s father as “unknown”, something like that. But I suspect there really isn’t an original one now. We know for certain that Obama Senior and Stanley Ann Dunham had a sham marriage, that the couple had no relationship, etc. More than that, why the Dunham’s used Obama to be the father, their purpose, etc., we can only speculate. (Better a foreign father, a possible dignitary in a foreign state, indeed, a “finance minister” as the blue bio said, then any one of ten guys out back of the gym?) But it is irrational in the extreme to imagine that they would take Stanley Ann to Kenya to give birth, given that there was no relationship between Obama Sr and the girl to begin with, plus the cost, also the actual danger to her health, plus what airline would take them?, etc.
It is NOT that Obama the president has pretended to be born in the U.S., but rather the cheat spent his life pretending to be born in Kenya! I hope we can prove that Obama Jr is a liar and a sham, someone who pretended to foreign birth to get scholarships, high grades, admittance to elite institutions, and (clearly the point of the agent’s blue bio) books sold.
What we have to contend with is a guy who thinks the following:
But get the facts on this “Natural born citizen” bit.
What we really have to contend with is a guy who thinks the following:
Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam’s issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got ‘tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,–legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!
King Lear Act 1, Scene 2
An Préachán
was a native born citizen, not a natural born citizen as the constitution requires
Absolutely and nowhere in the Constitution does it say a NATIVE Born Citizen or a Citizen with one American and on FOREIGN parent or a Citizen just Born there with TWO Foreign Parents can become President. NATURAL Born Citizen only and that is born in the USA of TWO Citizen parents.
There’s ignorance, and then there’s willful ignorance.
Read the Redstate article.
Read Red State Article and then go to the Web Pages (blogs) of Attorney Leo Donofrio, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Navy Commander Charles Kerchner, Attorney Van Irion, Attorney Larry Klayman for an in depth education on the “natural born Citizen” clause. The Red State article falls short and I would put my money on the men above if it ever had to go before the Supreme Court today. They did an amazing job and proved that the issue was settled long ago by the Supreme Court. If it were a non-issue there would have been no reason for members of Congress to have made 8 efforts since 2003 to change the clause.
Absolutely and nowhere in the Constitution does it make a distinction between native born and natural born citizen.
The only distinctions ever mentioned are between citizen by birth, aka natural born, aka native born, and citizen by naturalization, aka naturalized.
Here is the Apuzzo Blog, it is loaded with articles on the subject of “natural born citizen” clause. There is no better site on the internet that provides an education into this debate.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
There is a whole nights worth of reading, you will walk away convinced that Red State did a haphazard job when compared to what Attorney Mario Apuzzo put together. Most will side with the evidence as presented by Attorney Apuzzo. He is into this debate up to his neck in Obama ballot challenges, one in NY at this very moment. Red State is sitting on the sidelines.
Most would side with him?
Except for that Illinois court.
And that Georgia court.
And that New Jersey court.
So . . . every single court that has directly ruled on the issue has completely rejected his reasoning.
Speaking of bastards . . .
That British citizenship law everyone always mentioned?
It doesn’t apply to bastards.
If the father married the mother while already married, the marriage is not legitimate and neither is the child, and so the particular individual does not even qualify as a British citizen.
Just a little bit of trivia to add when refuting those who assert foreign law is more important than American law.
That just adds to the confusion. BO Sr. is a Muslim and so his religion allows multiple wives. Does this contradict laws in effect in the Colony of Kenya?
Ah!
But the British law in question says that if the child is born abroad, such as in Hawaii, it is the standards of the place of birth that determine legitimacy. (Gee, strange that the British understand that foreign laws trump theirs.)
Since polygamy was illegal in Hawaii, and the rest of the U.S., it means the marriage was illegitimate, and so the child illegitimate.
Therefore, BHO is a bastard
Alexandra Hamilton although with positive contributions to the Constitution; there is one thing he was responsible for that may have been the undoing of freedom. He established the first Federal Reserve Bank – to which 80% was sold to investors. We never had sovereignty from the beginning. Selling that interest to foreign entities that has the power to control us economically is unconstitutional as Jefferson complained; albeit he did make the Louisiana Purchase with the bonds; we must come to the realization that these investors may have conflicting agendas from the people. Where are they from – England? Kenya is under British control.
The Constitution is not going to be recognized by a British subject – untie the economical apron strings if you want the save the Constitution otherwise it has no mechanism of law enforcement.
Speaking of setting a precedent, what would happen if, after retiring from the presidency, Obama were to admit to being born in Kenya? Would it invalidate all legislation he signed into law? Would it make him liable for lives lost in drone attacks in foreign countries since his “cover” as Commander in Chief” would be invalid? Talk about difficulties . . . .
I’m sure the left would gleefully chime in that, now that the precedent was set, anyone was eligible, but what of the damage done?
This is hypothetical, but weird stuff happens. Bill Ayers brags, “Guilty as sin, free as a bird.”. You never know what people will admit to when they think they’re beyond any kind of penalty.
There is another possibility, that would be consistent with The One’s observed behaviors in other areas.
We early on learned that nothing He said could be taken at face value, and that any promise He made came with a built-in but never-stated expiration date. The only exceptions to this were statements and promises He has made to the extreme left of his base, such as “bankrupting” anyone running a coal-fired power plant; those promises He has kept.
Morning news; as a percentage of electric power generation in the U.S., coal has dropped from 45% a year ago to just over 30% today. The major reason has been Draconian regulation by EPA, backed up by lawsuits from environmental groups working in a sort of “unholy alliance” with them, sharing data, etc.; much of which should be, by law, restricted. (Of course, those on a holy crusade to Save The World cannot be bound by anything as petty as laws; laws they help pass are the weapons they use against the Unrighteous.)
This drop has not been fully compensated for by other sources; most of the slack has been taken up by LNG, with some by oil. Holy Wind and Holy Sun are, as before, barely a blip capacity-wise in spite of massive “green stimulus” spending. He promised to stop the use of coal and oil; He has delivered on that promise.
This tells me that He is capable of telling the truth, but only when that truth is consistent with His worldview. (“Coal and oil are Evil, therefore I shall smite them.”)
That worldview is the key. The One says whatever He thinks will get Him what He wants. But He will also tell you, up front, when He is going to hurt you to achieve His vision of Utopia.
A typical sociopath is smarter than this. He will couch his grand plans in neutral terms, and never tell you his true goals up front. He waits until he has the chains on you before leading you to the headsman’s block, as much because he enjoys your terror and hopelessness as you are bent over for the axe.
The One, however, is not that cunning. He lies about personal matters, but declares openly what He intends to do on larger issues. He also dares you to try to stop Him.
This is the behavior of a megalomaniac. And one of the features of that disorder is that whatever the sufferer claims, they genuinely believe it is reality.
This, IMHO, is the key to The One’s aberrant behavior. He has lived in a fantasy world of His own creation for so long, that He believes whatever He says is true. Even if what He says now directly contradicts something He said five minutes ago; to Him, that “former truth” is simply no longer “operative”. And He will deny that it ever even existed.
This also explains why it is impossible to “negotiate” with The One. He insists on His own reality, and that can shift in the time it takes to wash His hands in the bathroom off the Oval Office. You cannot reason with someone who has no baseline to work from, or worse yet has a constantly shifting definition of what that baseline is.
The common corporate term for this is “moving the goalposts”, but in The One’s case it’s more like there are no goalposts at all, or perhaps He insists on blindfolding you so that you cannot see them. I suspect He wants everyone else to only find His “goalposts” when He grabs them and slams them into same headfirst.
I strongly suspect that if The One where interviewed, with a psychological stress evaluator running to gauge the microtremors in His voice, or even the experimental EEG system (that detects the usual changes in brainwave activity when someone lies) hooked up, it would show absolute truthfulness no matter what He said. Even if you asked Him, “are you a human being?”, and after he answered “yes”, asked Him “are you a kumquat?” and He answered “yes” to that. If it pleased Him to think He was a kumquat, for Him, that would be true at that point in time. Five seconds later, He might decide He is something different, and that would now be true. In His mind, that is.
I never thought I’d say this about a sitting President of the United States, but if the simplest explanation for a given phenomenon that fits the evidence is generally the right one, the simplest explanation for The One’s behavior is that, by U.S. clinical standards, He suffers from a delusional mental state consistent with either megalomania, or schizophrenia.
That is, He may simply not be sane.
clear ether
eon
Excellent analysis. My own view is that Obama is a clinical narcissist, a state he probably moved into as a young boy. It’s not egoism, it’s not simply self-adoration, it’s pathological.
Obama lives, as you point out, totally and completely in a Virtual World. Made up of words as spoken by him. He has no contact with reality; he lives entirely in the words-he-speaks. And as you note, what he says one minute can be contradicted the next minute but to Obama, there is no problem; his reality exists only within Himself and His words.
He above all needs to control this World-of-Virtual-Words. He can’t have the real world intruding; therefore, Obama has a pathological need to control all others. He does this by misinformation and emotional manipulation – and he’s learned every trick in the emotional book. Accusations of your bigotry, racism, ignorance are all basic to his arsenal of tactics – and we’ve got plenty of examples in the last few years as he has berated the American public for not existing, perpetually, in a state of adulation.
When dissent emerges, he’ll turn vicious – smear campaigns, suing the various States that are resisting His Authority – and, if you continue to dissent and he feels he can’t control you, then – you cease to exist. Literally. For Obama, if he can’t control you, you have no ‘reality’, no ‘Obama reality’. You don’t exist unless he feels he can control you.
Add to this pathology, his indifference to the external world of facts and reality – and we see his indifference to and ignorance of history, of economics, of fiscal realities.
A dangerous individual.
he told the people, straight up, right in their face, he’d bust the coal industry, and he’s doing it, that’s all.
the american people, enchanted with him, heard it, and erased it, and elected him anyway. who’s crazy?
Most average voters never found out about that famous, or infamous, statement, because the news media simply didn’t quote him. The same way that they didn’t quote him when he said, in an interview aboard his campaign plane enroute to the Indiana primary, that he expected to be corrupted by the power of the Presidency, but that he was sure he could “do good” with that power anyway.
The interviewer stopped at that point, and never asked him what he defined as “good”.
Obama would tell the truth about his goals to audiences he was sure were “loyal to the cause”, and the news media would carefully neglect to quote him in full. The only reason the “bitter clingers” remark surfaced was a cellphone plus YouTube. The fact that he suffixed it with “we all know that it’s true”, or words to that effect, were another indicator that the candidate was fully invested in extreme leftwing dogmas and simply didn’t want to hear anything which contradicted them.
If not for the Internet, and (gasp!) talk radio, and (horrors!) Fox News, the country could have gone on ignorance of The One’s distorted reality tunnel well into a second term. For an example of how that works out, Google “Richard Milhous Nixon”.
As it was, he won because most voters outside of the extreme left did not know he was a man of the extreme left. (The ding-a-ling contingent, in fact.) And the news media wanted a Democrat- any Democrat- in the White House to match a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, so badly that they simply refused to report on the fact that their personable, charismatic Anointed One was, in fact, a gibbering dingbat.
You have to give them credit, though. The media pretty much destroyed George McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972, merely by accurately reporting every speech he gave- which made most voters conclude that he was even more far out in left field than Nixon. And he was the least irrational of the Democratic field, that year. (Read “Fear And Loathing; On The Campaign Trail ’72″ by Hunter S. Thompson.)
The media, Democrats to a man even then, wanted Nixon out and McGovern in so badly they could taste it. But their own efforts at reporting the news torpedoed his chances.
Since then, they have never made that mistake again. Which handily explains Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Not to mention a near-miss like Al Gore. Al’s mouth was, and is, so big, and his compulsion to spout his neo-Luddite delusions is so all-consuming, that the only way they could have saved him from defeat was to not report on him at all.
(Important hint to future would-be philosopher-kings; if you want to be President, it’s a bad idea to write a book detailing exactly how much you hate modern civilization. An even worse idea is having the book reprinted while you’re campaigning with the more egregious bits of lunacy edited out; someone is bound to compare it with an older, unexpurgated edition. The printed page is not your friend. If you lust after power, keep your delusions to yourself until after you have it. Then you can be as crazy as you want to be. Telecommunications has changed the rules; The United States is not Germany, and it isn’t 1933 any more. If you write it, somebody is going to archive it, and it won’t just be “the faithful” who read it. Guaranteed.)
Obama may be the last “progressive” president who could get elected with a paper trail of his pet hates behind him, only because the media’s determination not to mention same before the election has boomeranged on them after it, to the point that hardly anyone believes a word they say. Not to mention wanting to know what they are carefully not talking about. Like their Chosen One’s stunning lack of actually doing anything noteworthy before they decided he was their Messiah.
Obama is the inevitable result of nearly a century of leftist delusional thinking on the part of the Democratic Party. And of a far-from-unbiased news media so determined to crown him Emperor, that they held up a screen to keep anybody else from seeing that he had no clothes.
clear ether
eon
has much to answer for, but in this matter, obama’s remarks were on all of ‘em
“…hey held up a screen to keep anybody else from seeing that he had no clothes.”
Do you think enough of the electorate has learned this bitter lesson to the point that we can be assured that something like this never happens again?
This is the major means by which the media lies to America. They don’t tell outright lies (very often), for they would get caught sooner or later.
They simply don’t report that which is inconvenient to them. If it doesn’t fit their narrative, it doesn’t exist.
Defensive uses of handguns to prevent crimes? Doesn’t happen.
Abuse of women in abortion clinics? Doesn’t happen.
Body part trafficing from abortion clinics? No, doesn’t happen.
Research showing a clear link between abortion and breast cancer? Nope, doesn’t exist.
Chicago police making female pro-life protesters march naked through a men’s jail, with their hands in the air so they can’t even cover themselves? Nah, didn’t happen.
Illegal aliens robbing and killing across our border? Nope, no story here.
Mexican Army crossing our border and shooting at our law enforcement? Never heard of it.
And so it goes.
This is why most well-meaning people buy their lies hook, line, and sinker, day after day, year after year.
We who read other sources see the lies, but those who rely on the MSM do not. In fact, they think the MSM is balanced and fair. They think anyone who accuses Dan Rather or (fill in the blank) of being biased is simply a lunatic.
It’s a great plan, and it’s working well.
Latest theory which makes sense is Obama was born in Hawaii, dumped by mommy dearest to Commie grand parents, to get FREE schooling he claimed Kenyan Foreign student status thus Not Paying any Student loans, he used the Kenyan card to attend 3 colleges for FREE- the Commie way of living off the system- he most probably had a UK passport to visit his rich buds in Pakistan in 1981 when it was illegal for US citizens to travel there
You neglected the 4th possibility – Obama’s biography is a work of fiction written entirely by Bill Ayers without any input from Obama. The PR firm contacted the author, again it’s Bill Ayers, about the author bio who said “yep, my fictional self was born in Kenya”. What this really means is that nobody, not even Obama, read Obama’s fictional biography. Unfortunately, that also means there will be tens of thousands of immaculate first editions with pristine dust jackets that won’t be worth anything to collectors in the future.
Obama didn’t write his books, he didn’t write ObamaCare, he didn’t write the various stimulus programs and there’s no proof that he’s ever written anything marginally intelligent even by the low standards of the left. He spends other peoples’ money and he takes credit for other peoples’ work.
Exactly what I was thinking. The most likely scenario is that someone other than Obama worte the book(s) and created a fictionalized biography to go along with the fictional author. It does not matter who (other than Obama) actually wrote the book(s). However, if this is the case, you get the problems that Janine Turner pointed out with both cases b and c (this scenario is irrelevant to case a). If this is the case, it would say that Obama is elusive and dishonest as well as being a front man. The front man issue is even worse than in the c case. There is nothing wrong with writting with a pen name, but there is everything wrong with taking credit for something you had nothing to do with.
What’s the theory that puts a pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham in Kenya in August of 1961?
Why would a pregnant girl in 1961 conceivably make an expensive, time consuming and uncomfortable trip to that country to have her baby and then immediately leave?
That’s where the birther argument falls apart.
to hide the fact that frank marshall davis is the real father.
I can believe that FMD or some random sailor is the real father. I can also believe that he was born in or around Seattle (she started school there when he was one month old) both are more logical than her flying to Kenya to give birth.
Occam’s Razor would bear you out, Josh.
In all the discussions of this latest revelation on Obama’s history the finger of blame is never pointed at the truly guilty party; the Democratic Party. True the media dropped the ball and refused to vet the candidate but the Party did not fulfill its legal responsibility. The Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party are obligated, not to just find warm bodies to run in races, but to verify the basic qualifications to run for that office. This is true up and down the ballot. When there is a question it is up to the Party to do due diligence to answer that question. The Republicans did it with John McCain. A judge was consulted on his eligibility because of his birth in Panama.
If the Democratic Party was this sloppy in its vetting of their candidate for President what about down ballot. Were their candidates citizens? Did they meet the age requirement? Did they see verification for those facts? Why not ask the administrative head of the Democratic Party. Those documents should be required in each and every State by the Attorney General before putting the name on the ballot. Not just for President, but for County Clerk as well. A gentleman’s agreement doesn’t work anymore.
The Democratic Party now sits firmly in the hands of the far left. Obama is the classic Manchurian candidate, a plant. We didn’t see a real presidential election in 2008, we saw a coup d’etat. Lord help us if they manage to snag yet another term for this creep. It really is a crying shame that no one up there in DC is willing to do what should be done: Impeachment proceedings.
eon & ETAB, sharp posts.
Janine, great article.
BINGO!
Especially agree with:
“Creep”
“Impeachment Proceedings”
Regarding the latter, there must be an awfully large lot of Congresscritters with tons of skeletons in their closets, or we would have them? Or, could they be afraid of a term-remainder facing Joe Biden? God help us, either way!
Obama was vetted by two people, Nancy Pelosi and Obama
It only took one member of Congress to say something, and none did.
It’s my opinion that if the left manages to get this fraud re-elected, it will be the last election this country has. We will either collapse into economic and social destruction, or civil war. If they get reelected, they will view it as a mandate to go full throttle socialism. IMHO.
I personally believe he was born in the U.S. but used Kenya to defraud and game they system for a free education. The man’s a lair and a thief. And is supported by other liars and thieves.
So, what do you think will happen between the November election and January 20 if he actually loses the election?
Investigation of Obama’s background, birthplace etc. should have been done PRIOR to his first run for president. I think Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats if they did not demand clarification. Throughout the 2008 election cycle, nothing much was divulged about Obama and there was not much ‘hue and cry’ about its lack. To this day, we have little proof other than his word, that his father was who Barak Obama I. All of us could give false fathers’ ames and say we graduated or attended various colleges but that doesn’t make it true. Americans who voted for the man deserve what they got; the rest of us are tuck with the guy.
Americans should instigate a strict policy of checking on essential information so that any candidates meet all constitutional criteria. No documents=no campaign. It should be as simple as that. No race or other get-out-of-jail- free cards should ever be allowed.
Let’s see how Romney handles this.
The first thing, now that he’s the nominee, is to insist that Obama unseal all his records.
Will he challenge Obama to do that?
Fat chance. I know Sarah Palin would, though.
Oh, well . . .
Yeah, if she can find time between endorsing RINOs!
relentlessly in 2008 on these issues, when mushy McCain didn’t dare to.
She’s also urged Romney to go after Obama lately on these same issues.
You’d piss in your pants with your snotty remarks. Big, tough guy, wow.
Why would someone claim to be born in Kenya? Well if you were applying to a prestigous law school where they give points towards admission, in hiring considerations, or for awarding tenure, for things such as being anything but a white male then you would probably create a little white lie to get an edge too. Okay, maybe you wouldn’t and I wouldn’t but there are quite a few people who would. After all, how much of a stretch is it to claim to be born in Kenya when your father is from Kenya? I think that the reasons you gave are very simple but if you start to go down the path of option B then you have to ask, what was the intent of the lie? By willfully and knowingly lying to gain something of value you are committing fraud. If the President willfully and knowingly lied about being born in Kenya and he benefited from it either in getting accepted to a college or in getting highly sought after positions at various institutions then he committed fraud. I am not saying that this is what happened, I am saying that is the next logical step in going down the path of option B.
when he can get what he wants by making everything up as he goes along, why not? he ain’t in jail yet.
He felt that he didn’t “belong” anywhere.
He never knew his biological father.
He had lost his Indonesian stepfather (and his last name Soetero) when his mom got a divorce and shipped him off.
His white mother and grandparents were anti-American, multicult leftists, which made it hard for him to just be American.
He didn’t fit in with American blacks.
So he invented an identity to explain his otherness, to appear exotic, and to soothe his muddled soul.
Very sad… and when carried on by a full-grown adult, very sick.
That’s my take on it.
Janine, reason was lost the minute we stopped looking for treason because the traitors screamed “McCarthyism”.
Reason was lost the moment we attacked “birthers” instead of recognizing that it was Obama’s murky past and his Propaganda and Lies Ministry’s coverup that raised antennae about what he was hiding.
Reason was lost when he spent the whole of his life surrounded by radical extremists and was a virulent one himself and we stopped making inquiry into what their agenda was for this land of ours.
Reason was lost when we did not examine what Frank Marshall Davis stood for and against and what pearls of wisdom he imparted to young Barry that stuck and remain until this day.
Reason was lost when we ignored and allowed to be ignored how he got into Columbia without a single honor and then got into Harvard Law without a single honor, who paid for that admission, who prompted that admission and to what end and for what purpose.
Reason was lost when we ignored and allowed to be ignored Stanley Kurtz’ work in his book Radical-In-Chief and his work during the campaign when he was first thrown out of the library trying to do research on the Midwest Academy, what they stood for and against, the connection to extreme radicals and their plans for this land of ours.
Reason was lost when we ignored and allowed to be ignored the Socialist Scholars convention, Obama’s attachment to it, the connection of the extreme radicals who now hold high positions and high office in this country and what they plan for this land of ours.
Reason was lost when we ignored and allowed to be ignored the serial conspiracies to hide, distort, omit, fabricate and otherwise bastardize the truth within our information stream by the Propaganda and Lies Ministry, treating it as more of a prank than a crime against the people.
Reason was lost when a man with an intentionally hidden and murky past was treated by Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker and David Brooks and David Frum and Christopher Buckley as a rock star whose crease in his pants and cool demeanor were actually important to an otherwise wholly incompetent and serially radical resume.
Reason was lost when we failed to rage against the serial diminutions against our very founding documents, the trampling of our Constitution and the utterances against it, when we no longer have the will to protect it, we no longer have the ability to preserve it.
Reason was lost when we allowed with not even the meekest of protest, our Senate to shirk their duties and responsibilities and to this minute refuse to present us with a budget on how they intend to spend OUR money…not theirs.
Reason was lost, Janine, because we no longer have the will to fight for it, for our rules, for our founding documents, for the truth we deserve, for the land we inherited with all its bounty. We have been silenced, shouted down, cowed and peer pressured into submission.
Reason was lost, Janine, because we care more about what Hollywood’s extreme left and academia’s extreme left and the Propaganda and Lies Ministry’s extreme left might say about us, if we rose up and defended this land of ours.
We will not take our country back from the radical extremists, we will submit to the overthrow. Because we are afraid to be called names.
My position on the birther issue has always been this: We don’t know. And, it’s an issue because the firewalling of ALL information about the murky and radical past, with the information bagman protection by the media, who snivel and grovel at his feet.
In the case of how his past reflects his intentions to rule this land of ours has been covered up, conspiracy isn’t a theory, it’s a crime.
it ain’t a crime until he’s charged with it, and convicted.
The conspiracy is a crime when it is committed.
Being untried or not found guilty does not evaporate the commission of a crime. OJ Simpson either committed a double homicide or he didn’t. But if he did, the crime existed and not being convicted doesn’t erase that.
And…perhaps more importantly…conspiracy to cover up, conspiracy to lie to the American people, by the Propaganda and Lies Ministry, conspiracy to hide material evidence, conspiracy to shred the Constitution, conspiracy to break the covenant to preserve and protect our liberties…is not just one man. It is a group of traitors.
And THAT crime doesn’t go away simply because we don’t have the courage or will to confront it.
Again, for all of that…conspiracy isn’t a theory…it’s a crime.
he ain’t guilty of the crime until tried and convicted, you know that, so press charges first, okay?
You keep missing the point.
Perhaps intentionally…but perhaps not.
There is no conspiracy of one…please read again…slowly………………….. ALL the conspiracies.
And…again…a crime is still a crime, even if you get away with it. I assume you know that.
As to the birthplace issue, agreed – we don’t know.
And anyone who says the matter is settled (“settled science!”) and there’s nothing to investigate is either profoundly stupid or an abject coward.
Bravo, cf. Your list should be nailed to the doors of Congress. I’d love to see a 10 Million Man March on Washington to deliver that list.
AMEN !
If I were the president, I never would have shown you lunatics anything. You want my birth certificate? File an FOIA and see where it gets you. Otherwise, you can promptly go **** yourselves. This is just another tactic. Most of you couldn’t give a rat’s behind about the actual certificate; you probably wouldn’t even know it if you actually saw it. It’s the act of playing gadfly that gets you crazies off. If you were satisfied with the certificate, you’d just move on to the next manufactured outrage to try and get someone, anyone, to roll around in the mud with you. This is what thugs do. The president would have been smart to let you roll around in the mud alone.
Yes yes, we’re lunatics for wanting the Constitution to be observed. You know you have no argument so you’re resorting to the standard leftist technique of screaming imprecations at your opponents. It’s sort of like the monkeys in the zoo throwing their feces at people. You amuse is, but you never convince us.
Please, constitutional scholar, direct me to the Article and Section that covers the President’s affirmative obligation to present his birth certificate individually to every hollering nutcase that demands it?
just one lousy genuine article of a birth certicate some one of these days, how about it?
If there was nothing to hide then why go to such effort to hide it? Why aren’t you interested in learning the truth? What do you gain by going along with any lies that may be extant?
Go troll elsewhere, Master of the Muppets!
The Creep-in-Chief had the obligation, as has anybody applying for high office, to present, openly and without prompting, his qualifications for said office. To renege on even one part of this obligation commonly is to be seen as grounds for denial, if for no other reason than that he filed an incomplete application, a technicality, but nonetheless decisive. Beyond that, it raises questions as to his veracity, which raises questions about his truthfulness in other important matters, which raises questions regarding his trustworthiness … I’m sure you get the idea that it’s no trivial matter. Troll on, now, will ya?!
Sen. Leahy Says Two US Citizen Parents — And Obama Agrees
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a “natural born” Citizen, as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill — dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain’s cause.
It was during the bill’s hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.
Every time the words, “citizen” and “parent,” are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, “citizens” and “parents,” is used. The plural case is the operative case.
It is Sen. Leahy’s opinion — his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website — that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace.
Obama had one American parent –singular — his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.
Obama, himself, “at birth,” was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain — he says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of “divided loyalties,” — the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place — a fact that further underlines Obama’s ineligibility.
The source of this information is Sen. Leahy’s own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff’s testimony.
The plural word “parents” is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word “citizens” is used five times. That’s nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of “parent” or “citizen” is used.
Just because Sen. Leahy declared that one class of people are always American citizens does not mean that no other class are always American citizens.
A man with nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of will not mind if the world asks him to show his records and will show them. Obama has something to hide and that’s why everything is sealed.
America knows more about George Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin and Angelina Jolie than it does about Barry Sortero AKA Barack Hussein Obama POTUS and his wife Michelle. The fact Obama has two names is enough of a red flag to make me doubt him.
If one wishes to attend any school in the United States one must produce a birth certificate, social security number to drive one must produce an ID for a license which means a birth certificate and or a social security card/number.
If Barack never received a selective service card then he is in violation of some law.
My view is, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Sortero is as fake as the proverbial three dollar bill.
other surname. He went by the first name Barry, then changed that to Barack as a young adult. Also, I believe he went by the name Barry Dunham for a while, too. Finally, he wound up with Barack Hussein Obama. It was considered racist by many supporters in the 2008 campaign to bring the Hussein name up, and to call him Barry was felt to be disrespectful, and even derisive. Since his purported father was named Barack, too, he is sometimes called Barack Hussein Obama II, or Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. — I’m not sure which, if either, is correct.
So, as you can see, there’s an awful lot of aka’s to fill in on a form, if a genuine or official one is to be found.
There are plenty of nicknames too, many best left unmentioned, the list is long, and new ones keep on coming.
Me, I just call him what’s-his-name (in polite company anyway), and let it go at that.
SCOAMF is my favorite nickname for Obama.
Born to a British Citizen Kenyan Muslim ,Undesirable mooching Alien, alcoholic, bigamous, womanizing, absentee Father and an underage mother, ADOPTED by an Indonesian Muslim STEPFATHER. ALL members of BOTH his Paternal Families were and STILL Muslims. Even his Kenyan Grandmother who his LYING Election Committee told us was a Christian has just returned from the Haj. He was brought up and schooled as a devout Mosque going Muslim in BOTH the State and Catholic run MULTI FAITH schools he attended in Jakarta. BTW when Barry was in Indonesia you had to be an INDONESIAN CITIZEN to go to State School. So maybe THATS why the Passport , College and Student loan records are HIDDEN. His contemporaries at school , one of whom is the current head of Garuda Airlines the Indonesian national airline,remember him as a devout Mosque going MUSLIM.
He took KORANIC STUDIES a Muslim ONLY subject at school a fact he himself ADMITS in his book DREAMS. He is on record as saying ‘If the Political will goes against them I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS” and also “the Muslim call to prayer is one of the MOST beautiful sounds on earth” .
He can also recite the Shahada in perfectly accented Koranic Arabic , must be a result of his MENGAGI studies a subject only DEVOUT Muslims take. BTW Muslims claim that anyone who says the Shahada, which calls Allah the PARAMOUNT God (why Paramount are there other LESSER Gods????) and also say Mohammad is his messenger , IS A MUSLIM. So why are Muslims not calling for him to be killed as an APOSTATE.
So what is Barry Soetero the man who tells us he has ‘ALWAYS been a Christian” well for a start he is a BLATANT BAREFACED LIAR
To all those wondering how the Obamination still rates 40-47% support. Sit down and just think about it a little. There are 13% of the population who voted for him because he looked the same as them even though he has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with them except maybe his Fathers Arabic SLAVE TRADER connections. I refer of course to BLACKS of whom 96% RACISTLY voted for him and that same 96% support him still and will continue to do so no matter what . Its what RACISTS do. Then there are the 20-30% of Americans who are dyed in the wool brainwashed left wing Islamophile PC, MC moonbats. Who also are incapable of change or logic or common sense.
So you see the Obamination is SURE of between 33-43% naive gullible fools and RACIST support no matter what he does . Which is why he and the corrupt DEMS are going ‘hell for leather’ AGAINST voter ID checks and FOR the nailed on moonbat voters ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT AMNESTY will bring them. You have been warned.
A lot of heat and not much light in these comments, if you avoid the SCOTUS’s definition of natural-born citizen in Minor v. Happersett, 1875: “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 THE NATIVES, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
This is critical because Article II, section 1 of the US Constitution requires the POTUS to be a “natural-born citizen”; the Twelfth Amendment extends this to the VPOTUS as well.
0bama is only eligible to be POTUS if he was born in Hawaii, and his father was an American citizen at the time of his birth (Frank Marshall Davis, OK; BHO, Sr., not OK). Haley, Jindal, and Rubio are not eligible to be VPOTUS.
Why do you fail to include the next two sentences from that decision?
“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.”
The court explicitly punted on ruling on the children of non-citizen parents in Minor v. Hapersett.
So; Basically, Obama can be anything you make him out to be, unless it is a liar, since that’s “racist”.
But, if that’s the case, then “racist” actually means factually correct. It’s understandable how the messiah’s faithful want to use some word that stigmatizes the subject of their indignation, however inaccurate.
The Democrat Party has conjured up their own Thesaurus. They have given opposite meanings to just about every term in the English language that describes a negative. In keeping with that paradigm, “racist” DOES depict literal accuracy.
It appears Obama views himself a magician! That’s very entertaining. ANOTHER sphere of knowledge he has no basic skills of.
Immediately after he became a Senator by corruption in Illinois, He went to
KENYA!!!!!
I have a letter from him via email trying to justify it.
The first thing that OBAMA did when he was elected to being a Senator was to
go to Kenya and had Michelle join him later there. HE never dreamed at the time the democrats would like his speeches he read with such intensity. They didnt care if he came from the MOON. but we have LAWS and that is where the problem is.
Somewhere in all of this a reference was made, by someone, that calling Obama a Kenyan was racist. I don’t see how that can be. If I call someone a German, or a Frenchman, does that make me a racist? I have NOTHING against the people of Kenya. It isn’t some kind of evil thing to be from Kenya. I would never say that Obama was born in Kenya, either, except that the newspapers and even the government of Kenya say it’s so. If I did say it, it wouldn’t be intended as a put down for President Obama, just a fact. The fact that his father WAS a citizen of Kenya precludes his eligibility to be the president of this country. He might be qualified to be the president of Kenya, however. Also, Hawaii was not a state, as some one called it, when he was allegedly born there. It was a Territory of the USA. A small distinction, I know.
The term REASON was used to open this essay.
“Also, Hawaii was not a state, as some one called it, when he was allegedly born there. It was a Territory of the USA. A small distinction, I know.”
Hawaii became a state in 1959, two years before Obama was born, and more than a year before he would even have been conceived.
It seems that he is a puppet and foreign agent of RUSSIA.. He reported to them
recently caught on tape that he would do better after the election.
Actually it says that he is required to be a natural born citizen to be President. Natural born means that both his parents are US citizens. In fact it does not matter if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya – he was ineligible by his father not being an US citizen. Here is the clicker – When McCain was being questioned about his eligibility because he was born outside the US but both his parents were US citizens – Obama was on that committee of questioning. It was determined that McCain was eligible because his parents were US citizens.
I feel as though the Presidency has been hijacked- The issue of calling people racist when they object is prepping us for racial conflict. We have become their slaves and they will behave like slave owners. People forget that they themselves have been violent slave owners in the past.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292901/
No, ‘natural born’ does not mean that the child requires parents who are both US citizens. It simply means: born in the sovereign domain or territory of the USA [and a US military camp is defined as such).
"The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth", including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements"
And "Federal District Judge John A Gibney, Jr. wrote in his decision in the case of Tisdale v. Obama, "The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States ... It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g. United States v. Ark [sic] …” [103]”
Wikipedia has a good outline of the issues, challenges and definition.
You are wrong, ETAB, and so is Wikipedia. If “Natural Born” only referred to someone born on American soil, then our Founding Fathers would not have added…”No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the Office of President:”(Article II). All those who signed the Constitution WERE born in the US colonies. The matter was clarified by the Supreme Court in 1879 during Minor vs Happerstat when it was finally defined as being born on American soil to parents who were American Citizens.
The Founders’ reference to “No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen [of the United States..you left this out] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” doesn’t refer only to the Founders, as eligible to be President! In addition, it acknowledges that all people, who were citizens of Britain, were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, now citizens of the USA.
It says absolutely nothing about ‘being born on American soil to parents who were American citizens.
The Lynch vs Clarke case, the Bates 1862 query and others, all say the same thing. Citizenship is conferred, naturally, by being born on US soil. And reference to parents who are NOT citizens is rejected; their citizenship has no effect on the child’s American citizenship by birth.
“The Federal courts have almost uniformly held that birth in the United States, of itself, confers citizenship.”
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. …. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that … no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.” [Rawl 1825]
This view prevails today. There is no parental requirement.
“Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, stated, “There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law.”[
"Similarly, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had ruled "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."[50][51] Daniel Takaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate’s parents is irrelevant.[52] G. Edward White, Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, states the term refers to anyone born on U.S. soil or anyone born on foreign soil to American citizen parents”
It’s not Wikipedia that is wrong or right; these are just a list of constitutional law professors who are outlining their analysis of citizenship.
The Minor vs Happerstat case wasn’t about citizenship but about whether or not women could vote – an entirely different issue. That is, the 14th amendment referred only to citizenship not the right to vote. This rejection of the vote was overturned by the 19th amendment. Again, this has nothing to do with citizenship.
No, the reason it is phrased that way is because no natural born citizens of the United States were eligible for the Presidency at the time the Constitution was adopted. There is also the requirement to be 35 years of age, and the United States had only existed for 12 years at that time. All of the Founders, and other people, were natural born citizens of Great Britain. They were naturalized citizens of the United States.
In order to have a President without waiting 23 years for someone to grow up they had to include a grandfather clause for everyone who had become an American citizen by the process of creating a new nation after declaring independence.
Obama has broken his oath of office, no matter which of the three may be correct. The bad news is that his ineligibility has set a precidence. There are great concerns about Romney’s eligibility as well. Apparently, once one of the politicians ignore a law, everybody jumps on the bandwagon.
This is curious – the definition has changed.
Refer to Democrat Thesaurus.
A Matter Of Constitutional Integrity
Joseph Farah says it is plainly evident even prominent officials in Kenya believe Barack Obama is Kenyan-born, it becomes a matter of historical accuracy and constitutional integrity that his life story be fully documented.
Long before Obama was elected and ever since, the people of Kenya have spoken of him as one of their own. Even first lady Michelle Obama referred to her husband’s “home country” as Kenya during the campaign, and now we have James Orengo, a member of the Kenyan Parliament explicitly characterizing Obama as “born here in Kenya” on page 31.
It is still highly unfashionable here in the states to raise any questions about Obama’s nativity story or his foreign travels or how he recovered his citizenship after living in Indonesia. Americans are simply supposed to accept on faith that Obama is a “natural born” citizen without the kind of appropriate documentation that would be required for a passport or even to obtain a driver’s license in most states.
Farah says: I don’t accept those ground rules — I don’t accept those impositions — I don’t accept that politicians should be given the benefit of the doubt — I don’t believe the Constitution should be trifled with.
Now, I don’t know where Obama was born. But I think I speak for millions of Americans when I say it’s time to find out. It’s time to see the long-form, original birth certificate signed by an eyewitness to that birth. It’s time to see his travel records, his passport record, his medical records, his school records, his college records.
It’s a matter of honor — It’s a matter of truth — It’s a matter of constitutional eligibility — And it’s a matter of historical accuracy and clarity for the American people and for the whole world.
Barack Obama and his supporters concern themselves so frequently with the beliefs and convictions of foreign nations and peoples.
Since it is now clear that well-educated foreign officials are shaping their own country’s destiny under the belief — right or wrong — that Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States, don’t we have a special obligation to document the true story?
Kenyan officials are debating the ratification of a new constitution. They are making decisions that will affect their country for decades to come based, in part, on the supposition that the U.S. allows the foreign-born to become president of the United States.
A significant percentage of American citizens, according to every poll conducted, likewise have grave doubts about Obama’s claim to be Hawaiian-born and constitutionally eligible to serve as president.
Nevertheless, Obama refuses to address these controversies with facts, evidence, proof.
Enough’s Enough: Obama Has Conceded Ineligibility
For more than two years now, I have given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. That may be hard to fathom for some because of my admittedly relentless and tireless pursuit of the truth about his origins and his constitutional eligibility for office.
After all, I am the guy who has posted this question on billboards across America: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
But I really have given Obama the benefit of the doubt until now. I have asked the questions and directed the investigative reporting that has changed America’s political landscape on the eligibility question. WND conducted the first national poll on this subject 15 months ago. Back then, we were shocked that 50 percent of Americans knew there was a controversy about his birth certificate and his eligibility — because WND is the only news organization in the country that pursued the story. Today, the latest polls show 58 percent of Americans don’t believe Obama’s story and suspect he is not eligible to serve.
That is a big shift in public opinion in a short period of time.
Snip . . .
Let’s just agree that Obama’s indifference to calls from the public for transparency and honesty strongly suggests he has something to hide. Since he is a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, it is long past time for him to come clean, lay his cards on the table and prove his eligibility. We’ve given him that opportunity, and he has insulted those of us who now represent an overwhelming majority by political standards. Instead, he dishonestly plays the victim role, pretending he has done everything he can reasonably do to settle the matter.
So, right here and now, I declare the president ineligible by default. Maybe he can prove I’m wrong. Maybe he can’t. But the people cannot be expected to prove a negative.
I feel confident we’ll soon learn the truth.
What percentage of the public would have to express doubts about Obama’s eligibility before it became a real story to the news media?
What percentage of the public would have to express doubts about Obama’s eligibility before he would condescend to providing the most basic evidence required for evaluation?
What percentage of the public would have to express doubts about Obama’s eligibility before controlling legal authorities at the state and federal level take appropriate actions to hold him accountable and to ensure America never faces another problem like this in the future?
Personally, I think we’re very close to reaching the critical mass that will bring this issue to a head.
This Is A Conspiracy
We know, and can demonstrate, that the Democratic Party of Hawai’i did not certify Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible to serve as of President of the United States (POTUS), as is proscribed by law.
According to Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113, the Democratic Party of Hawai’i is obligated to certify its candidates as “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
Here is a statement on the law from the State of Hawaii, Office of Elections. Note the highlighted paragraph 2:
“(2) a statement by the political party that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…”
Now, here is the Democratic Party of Hawai’i certification for Obama. It is missing the required language, “qualified to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution.” Instead, it substitutes the following language:
“THIS IS TO CERIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice president of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic parties…”
In case you think there this is just an accident, here is John Kerry’s Hawaiian certification. It contains the proper language, and states:
“THIS IS TO CERIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice president of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…”
And, here is Al Gore’s Hawaiian certification. It too contains the proper language. It states:
“THIS IS TO CERIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice president of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…”
Now, look at Obama’s certification again:
“THIS IS TO CERIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice president of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic parties…”
That’s quite a difference, isn’t it?
We know the Democrats don’t play by the rules, but here they place their political party above the United States Constitution.
In addition to the fraud Democratic Party of Hawai’i document, we KNOW the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Chair of the Party Convention (Nancy Pelosi), the Secretary of the Party (Alice Travis Germond), party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many, many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.
The proper, legal text customarily used on the DNC Party “Official Certification of Nomination” document reads as follows:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
But look at Obama’s “Official Certification of Nomination,” as submitted. This was the document that was delivered to fifty state DNC offices. Those offices certified Obama/Biden’s candidacy to each of the fifty state Election Commissions. Each commission date-stamped the document, stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these “certified” candidates on the ballot.
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.”
The DNC filed a fraudulent “Official Certification of Nomination” for Barack Obama and Joe Biden in all 50 states — they knew Obama was ineligible during the campaign, and they know he’s ineligible now.
This was a conspiracy. This was fraud on a massive scale, and not a single judge or congressman will even look at this evidence.
Constitutional Requirements
NATURAL Born Citizen
Parents
Both are U. S. Citizens
AND
Born in the U.S. mainland
US Constitution
Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5
Legal Rulings
Minor v. Happersett
(1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Citizen By Statute
by
Statute
Born to at least 1 US Citizen Parent
OR
Born in the U.S. mainland
OR
Naturalized
US Constitution
14th Amendment,
Sec. 1
Legal Rulings
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Native-Born Citizen
Born in the U.S. mainland
US Constitution
14th Amendment,
Sec. 1
Legal Rulings
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939)
As can be seen above Obama with his FOREIGN father qualifies a JUST a Citizen by STATUTE and as such is INELIGIBLE to be President. If he had been born outside the USA he would not have even qualified for that.
Nope, pragmatist- you’re wrong.
Your references do not contain what you try to tell us they contain. The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, does not say that the president must be born of two US citizens.
The 14th amendment refers to voting rights not citizenship by birth.
I reject, totally, Obama – but for his pathological narcissism, his socialism, and his destructive agenda towards the USA. But, he is, legally, eligible as a US president. Simply because he was born (as far as we know) in Hawaii. Period.
Once again:
There is no functional distinction in those court cases between “native born” and “natural born”. The two terms are repeatedly used as absolutely synonymous, and even interchanged within the same paragraph in some of them.
In particular, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark makes it clear that a child born to two parents who are explicitly prohibited by statute from ever becoming American citizens is a citizen by birth, and not by statutory process of naturalization.
The Constitution itself does not provide any precise definition of the terms.
The 14th Amendment makes a notice of inclusion that affects one category.
The only distinctions ever made in the Constitution are between natural born and naturalized. Any additional category is a complete fabrication, unsupported by any past laws, rulings, or discussions about them.
Documents released by the State Department in two separate Freedom of Information Act requests bolster evidence Barack Obama became a citizen of Indonesia when he moved to the Southeast Asian nation with his mother and stepfather in the late 1960s.
In a passport amendment submitted Aug. 13, 1968, Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, identified her son with an Indonesian surname and asked the State Department to drop him from her U.S. passport.
The transaction could have been part of an effort by Dunham to obtain Indonesian citizenship for her son. It took place before the State Department began requiring all citizens traveling abroad, regardless of age, to obtain their own passport.
Several court cases challenging Obama’s presidential eligibility have argued he gave up his U.S. citizenship in Indonesia and used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in the early 1980s. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.
The amendment was submitted less than a year after Dunham joined her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia. It requested “Barack Obama II (Soebarkah)” be removed from her U.S. passport, No. 777788.
A letter from Lolo Soetoro to immigration officials in Hawaii pleading for an extension of his student visa, because anti-American sentiments in Indonesia could endanger his family, offers a possible reason for seeking Indonesian citizenship for Obama.
Meanwhile, an Indonesian school registration card that surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign presents evidence Obama was an Indonesian citizen during his time in the country as a child.
The Associated Press published a photograph purportedly of Obama’s registration card at Indonesia’s Francis Assisi school. The card showed he was enrolled as “Barry Soetoro” and listed as an INDONESIAN CITIZEN whose official religious identification was MUSLIM
An AP spokesman affirmed that the photograph of the registration card was authentic.
Turbulent politics
Lolo Soetoro’s letter to Immigration and Naturalization officials in the Department of Justice in Hawaii explained his wife’s U.S. citizenship could be a problem in the turbulent politics of Indonesia in the mid-1960s.
“My wife, Ann Soetoro, is a citizen of the United States and has resided here all her life,” Soetoro wrote the immigration officials, pleading hardship should he be forced to return to his Indonesian home. “It is presently impossible for my wife to return to Indonesia with me.”
Soetoro argued “anti-American feeling has reached a feverish pitch under the direction of the Indonesian communist party, and I have been advised by both family and friends in Indonesia that it would be dangerous to endeavor to return with my wife at the present time.”
“Complicated internal problems are causing the Indonesian government to crumble rapidly,” he pleaded. “The anti-Western forces are gaining in strength and have brought about government conviscation (sic) of all United States industry in Indonesia as well as sacking of the United States embassy, and burning and sacking of United States Information Service libraries. The United States Peace Corps has recently been asked to leave because the Indonesian government is no longer able to guarantee the safety of corps members.”
The newly released State Department records show Obama and his mother traveled to Indonesia to join her husband in October 1967, with Obama listed on her passport as her son and an American citizen.
When Obama’s mother returned to the U.S. Oct. 20-21, 1971, she entered with State Department forms allowing her to travel with the passport she used in 1967 to go to Indonesia, even though it had expired.
The expired passport contained no reference to Barack Obama, although he had traveled with his mother on the October 1967 flight from the United States to Indonesia.
The only known testimony that Obama returned home from Indonesia alone and on a U.S. passport is his own account in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.” That source, however, has proved to be unreliable in various material aspects.
Questions
Did Obama’s mother remove him from her passport to establish him as an Indonesian citizen, both for his safety and his acceptance in Indonesian schools?
If Dunham had wanted her son to retain U.S. citizenship, she could have kept him on her passport and avoided the trouble of filing an amendment with the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta.
On Aug. 13, 1968, the date Dunham filed the amendment, there was no reason to anticipate she would send her son home alone, something she did not decide to do until three years later, in 1971.
In her own handwriting on the passport amendment, Dunham declared, “I intend to continue to reside abroad for the following period and purpose,” stating her stay in Indonesia is “indefinite” because she is “married to an Indonesian citizen.”
Lolo Soetoro also appears to have had an influence on convincing Dunham to change her mind about sending Obama to school in Indonesia. Both were worried about that prospect when they were pleading for Lolo not to be forced home in 1966.
A letter to the file by INS/DOJ investigator Robert R. Schultz, dated May 24, 1967, documents a telephone call he had with Dunham in Hawaii on May 12, 1967.
“She also indicated that her son is now in Kindergarten and will commence the first grade next September and if it is necessary for her and the child to go to Indonesia she will educate the child at home with the help of school texts from the U.S. as approved by the Board of Education in Honolulu,” Schultz wrote.
Obama would not have needed Indonesian citizenship to study in Jakarta at home
with his mother.
Clearly, from the registration record from the Assisi school, being listed as an Indonesian citizen was useful to Obama, much as his mother and stepfather had pleaded to U.S. officials before Lolo Soetoro was denied the waiver he needed to stay in the U.S. legally past 1966.
Again, that is irrelevant.
Indonesian law cannot overrule American law in the United States.
American law states that citizenship cannot be surrendered on behalf of a minor by anyone, even their parents.
It can only be done by the person, after their majority, in a very specific and explicit manner.
Whatever his mother and step-father did to comply with Indonesian law it could not and did not legally end his American citizenship according to American law.
Janine:
All I have to say is….TAKE THAT GLENN BECK BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS … THE
EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!!!! I’M MEAN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
It is not logical to assume that Obama was born in Kenya for two reasons. First, the cost and difficulty of the trip in 1961 would have been too much for an average family.
Second, a trip for the purpose of giving birth half way around the world would have been so remarkable that it would have been repeated by Stanley Ann Dunham’s parents (“my daughter traveled to Africa to give birth to my grandchild…”) and by Stanley Ann to her anthropology teachers and classmates (“I’ve been to Africa…”). Any stories from Stanley Ann’s contemporaries about a trip to Africa?
Third, no airline would allow a baby less than one month old travel on an airliner in 1961. The kid would have been unable to equalize the pressure in his ears and would have cried…the…entire…trip.
Fourth, her in-laws would have allowed Stanley Ann to take that baby away without causing a lot of trouble? The political situation in Kenya was already tense and this would have made a bad situation worse.
Fifth, wouldn’t the authorities have requiured Stanley Ann to get a lot of immunizations and shots before allowing her to return to the US?
Sixth, any visa requirement for Kenya? Would that have taken months to get the proper papers?
Finally, what mother is going to let her only child travel around the world to give birth to the first grandchild in a third world nation?
Seventh. comparing the ooperational range of the first generation jet airliners then in service, it would taken four changes of planes and almost thirty hours of flight time to make the trip – one way. Who would do that – with a baby – by themselves? For THREE DAYS!
Thank you, Janine. Well said.
Let’s keep in mind that regardless of the actual birthplace, enough questions have been raised, and enough evidence has surfaced, that it is unacceptable to paint skeptics as part of some sort of racist lunatic fringe. The left desperately wants this issue to go away, so much so that they’ve put a lot of energy into ridiculing anyone who dares to bring it up. They’ve attempted to manufacture a consensus, similar to the way the global warming people did: “everyone agrees on this, except for those who don’t, but they’re a bunch of poopieheads so they don’t count.”
The left can continue to attempt to ridicule skeptics but the issue speaks for itself.
I’m living in a little country Hungary in the middle of Europe, so sorry, my english is not the best. When I was a teenager President Reagan was elected and I lived in a communist country. Because my family aristocratic backround, we weren’t open for this “idea”, so I really thougt, that he was the best president ever in the history of USA. Sorry, my knowlege in your history is weak. But. Nowdays I really don’t understand what is exactly happening in your country? How is it possible, that a whole nation looks brainwashed, and elect a muslim president? Why the wise guys at the republican party aren’t able to make a creative campaign? I was so sad, that McCain wasn’t elected, because the “wise guys” wasn’t able to reach the younger target group on the internet and other ways where they tweet and chat, ect. The question for me not the birthplace of the president (it is very important I know), the question is that why this strong country became so weak, and why who elected Obama don’t see it? How is it possible, that the chinese bought almost the whole country, drone were lost, and later Iranian find it, and I haven’t heard a single answer for those question from your President yet. As I see from here, he won’t answer for his birthplace question. And I’m sad, that he can do it.
Two things really scare me. One that Obama steals the election like I firmly believe he did in 2008; and two that he is defeated and has from November to January to finish destroying this country. What can we do?
Bettijo- please take your head out of your ass. Take some online classes so you can complete your high school degree and start to think critically.
that is all
All:
Hopefully the link below should put the question of who is a natural born citizen to rest.
It’s a link to a report done by the Congressional Research Service.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
• The former Governor of Hawaii (a Republican) confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
• The former Head of Health Services (a Republican) went to the vault to personally view the ORIGINAL Obama birth certificate and confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
• The current Governor of Hawaii went to school with Obama’s parents and confirmed that he knew Obama’s mother while she was pregnant (and in Hawaii) and celebrated Obama’s birth with his parents.
• The newspaper confirmed the announcement of Obama’s birth in 1961 (that was in the paper) was from Public Records at the time of Obama’s birth.
All this “birther” nonsense reminds of those that are convinced that NASA never went to the moon.
Ms. Turner, I know you have to pander to right wing crazies but you hurt all conservatives with this kind of article.
you are all dumb as bricks.
It’s hilarious that Ms. Turner thinks a court of law would consider an author’s bio as evidence, yet refuses to consider as evidence either of Obama’s birth certificates or the claims of various Hawaii state officials. Sure, a court *might* consider the bio to be evidence, but then the official birth certificates would most assuredly make the bio worthless as evidence. I mean, there are many many bios saying that Obama was born here, and only one that says he wasn’t. Yet we’re to ignore all of the bios except this one. I wonder why that would be…
Even funnier, for how much was written in this essay, it all boils down to her belief that the bio must have been approved by Obama. That’s it. That’s her entire case: An assumption that Obama saw the bio and approved it. And what if he didn’t see it at all, seeing as how it was for a book that wasn’t released? She refuses to even consider the possibility.
So while I agree that reasoning skills and information are important for democracy, it’s quite obvious that Ms. Turner fails on both counts.
Maybe Ms. Turner just assumes that President Obama is a narcissist, like certain aging actresses.
> It’s hilarious that Ms. Turner thinks a court of law would consider an author’s > bio as evidence, yet refuses to consider as evidence either of Obama’s birth
> certificates or the claims of various Hawaii state officials.
That requires basic comprehension skills. Wing-nuts have not evolved yet to that level. They cant go past playing faux racist victim.
“The bio stating Obama was “born in Kenya” can be one of the following:
a) Correct
b) Fabricated by Obama to create a mystique about himself
c) Simply a typo”
The intelligent person would ask the person who wrote the bio where the information came from. Oh wait, someone did.
“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me–an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.” ABCNews, May 18, 2012
Cant believe there are so many morons in this world. Surprising thing is that these idiots can read and write and know what a computer is.
Get this: Obama is black. You are a racist. As a wing-nut, you should be proud of it. There is nothing wrong in it. You are the core of republican party.
Now go pray for rain in your southern wing-nut state.
Well said.
For Ms. Turner to talk about truth is bizarre considering her child is the result of an affair with a married man (Jerry Jones Jr.). Truth, honesty, and American values, right Ms. Turner?
I just find it so odd that these people who preach from a high moral ground don’t actually ever walk their talk.
I’m curious why this article is illustrated with a picture of a bio from a book jacket that was confirmed as a simple misprint by the publisher over five years ago? I’m guessing it’s determined racism that can’t accept basic reality. Come back to Earth folks, this is radical toxic nonsense.
Janine, you should have stuck to acting and stayed out of politics, because you are (to be perfectly blunt) an idiot.
No, the biography on the flyleaf of a book would NOT be “taken into consideration.” The Hawaii Department of Health has produced what is considered self-authenticating and prima facie proof in a court of law. Do you really think that just writing something down on the flyleaf of a book could even CONTEST a state’s Department of Health? He has produced TWO birth certificates, a long and a short form. And contrary to the opinion of morons who tried to claim otherwise, those two documents are considered EQUAL in a court of law. They are BOTH prima facie evidence.
Okay, I’ll write down in my book that Janine Turner is a dumbass. There. That makes it legal in a court of law. The law would now recognize Janine Turner as a dumbass. Because it’s written a book now. Therefore it must be “taken into consideration” in a court of law.
You’re so stupid, it’s positively offensive how stupid you are.
As ruled in the Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, everyone born in the U.S., even to aliens, is a natural born citizen. The only exceptions are children born to hostile invaders or foreign diplomats.
“Republicanism cannot be maintained by ‘letting other people do it.’”
So I assume you mean republicanism as in the fact that we live in a republic given the quotes above regrading our republic. Isn’t the definition of a republic electing representatives to govern and letting them “do it” for us?
You may have had some valid points in you’re article but when you make ignorant statements such as the quote I’ve refers to I can’t take anything you say seriously. If your willing to ignore definitions of words to make your augment sound what other fact are you willing to ignore?
Did Janine Turner really have a child out of wedlock who was fathered by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’ son so that she, through her child, could snag a piece of Jerry’s fortune?
Yes, she had a baby with Jerry Jones Jr. who was married to another woman. That is what truth is to her. You can read it in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janine_Turner
So, we have a washed up actress who conducted an affair with a married man solely for the purpose of child support. A TRAMP like her is going to educate us on the President’s eligibility.
You people are hilarious . Really you need to come up out of the bunker sometime. There is sunshine and food you don’t have to eat out of a can.
A possible source of the so-called “birther” issue–or at least a potential cause of the rumors that have dogged President Barack Obama–has been identified.
Obama’s former literary agency misidentified his birthplace as Kenya while trying to promote the then-Harvard Law grad as an author in 1991.
According to a promotional booklet produced by the agency, Acton & Dystel, to showcase its roster of writers, Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.
“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me–an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
This is all birther nonsense. It’s clearly a typo. In the 70s when he got his passport he had to prove his American Citizenship. Also, he was born to an American citizen, thus making him an American anyhow.
More critical thinking clears up a lot of questions.
“Meanwhile, the right, riddled with fear of being called racist, is clammingup with political correctness.”
A spade is a spade. The right cannot runaway from what they are!! This kind of attack is rooted in the racist history of America by trying to deny the blacks are REAL Americans just like you.