A Chronology of Deceit

Every now and then I get an e-mail that has to be shared,  this is one of those e-mails.                    1 Dragon

One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough:  “Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii?” This question is distinct from the question, “Just where in fact was Obama born?”, and from the other question, “What do official documents say about where he was born?”

Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:

1. As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii.  This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)

2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.

3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005)

4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)

If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.

In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.

Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:

June 25, 2004 — http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html

June 26, 2004 — Bellview News Democrat

June 26, 2004 — AP Online Story by Michael Tarm

June 25, 2004 — AP Syndicated Story by Maura Kelly Lannan

(Second Source on June 26, 2009, which cites Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and reporter Dennis Conrad as contributors to this report)

(Third Source, The Ledger, print edition of June 26, 2009: partial republication)

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born/

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Here is another interesting mystery. World net daily today reports on this story and they have a screenshot of a Ghanese newspaper that has the line … this presidential visit to the continent of his birthplace.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113004

But the ghanese paper inself looks like it has cleaned up it’s article since it was published because that article NOW says… the presidential visit to the continent of his fathers birth.

http://www.modernghana.com/news/226379/1/history-beckons-as-prez-obama-arrives-tomorrow.html

Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

World Net Daily

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a “natural born citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president.  Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

The relevant Obama admission

At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

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.

This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: (e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

This helps explain why the definition of “natural born citizen” as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems.  If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation.  Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen.  Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.

While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president’s citizenship be “natural born.” A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen.  “Natural born” simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.

Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: “The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama’s presidency constitutionally legitimate?”

There are multiple circumstances that create “citizens at birth.” Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment.  Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language.  But they didn’t.

In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be “natural born citizens,” but the words “natural born” were repealed in 1795.  Congress never again legislated the definition of “natural born citizen,” and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.

The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.

Origin of the natural born citizen clause

The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance.  It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Jay underlined “born” which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.  The “natural born” requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity.  One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.

An important historical definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a 1797 translation of the “Law of Nations,” a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the “Law of Nations”:

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child’s birth.  That was made clear by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

It appears from James Madison’s notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms “native” and “natural born citizen” synonymously.  Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel’s text.  Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to “punish … offenses against the Law of Nations.”

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”

Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text.  The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …

It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted.  As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.

If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn’t have been eligible since he doesn’t fit the Minor Court’s standard for a natural born citizen.

The strange case of Chester Arthur

The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor.  Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born.  Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

Arthur’s deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration and age.  He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.

Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur’s eligibility until recently.  Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged  Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible.  This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.

Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents.  As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama’s eligibility.  Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn’t known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality.  That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.

In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents.  In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:

Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.

It’s ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn’t be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.

Chester Arthur’s true eligibility defect doesn’t appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog.  Clearly, Chester Arthur’s deception cannot serve to validate anyone’s presidential eligibility.  He got away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen.  Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen.  But that’s not accurate.  The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here.  If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … 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. …”

While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.

A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are  essential  to intelligent discussion.

The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators.  Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous.  His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public.  There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens.  This is not a political issue.  It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law.  As such, it deserves judicial review.

Source:

Allen vs. Soetoro appealed to 9th Circuit Court

CASE INVOLVES FOIA REQUEST FOR RECORDS OF BARRY SOETORO & FAMILY

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

Kenneth L Allen, AZ citizen, questions Obama’s citizenship status

(Feb. 13, 2010) — Just how long does it take to get information from the Federal Government via the Freedom of Information Act?  That question is being answered by the proceedings in the case Allen vs. Soetoro.  Mr. Ken Allen of Tuscon, AZ sought all information about Barry Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro, his adopted father, and Stanley Ann Dunham-Soetoro, his alleged mother, in the possession of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

The case was summarized accurately by Linda Bently of the Sonoran News on July 15, 2009.  Mr. Kenneth L. Allen appealed his case to the 9th Circuit Court following a denial of his original complaint with the U.S. District Court in Tuscon as regards documents of Barry Soetoro.

Allen’s basic argument is that privacy rights of illegal aliens cannot be invoked in his case on the grounds that Obama’s citizenship status has not been proven by documentation, and that therefore his FOIA request for all the documents he has requested should be granted.

While this appeal regards the exclusion of Barry Soetoro (and all aliases) from the FOIA request, the case in the District Court continues for the documents of Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro.  In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Frank R. Zapata, on Feb. 9, ordered limited discovery prior to hearing a motion for dismissal.  Such discovery would begin by March 19.

On the same day, Feb. 9, 2010, Molly C. Dwyer, Court Clerk for the 9th Circuit Court, set the schedule for filing of the Appellant’s Brief (i.e., Mr. Allen’s argument giving reasons for his appeal). The date is May 24, 2010.

Defendants (a.k.a. “Appellees”) in this case are Barry Soetoro, aka, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Obama; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General; Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State; Janet Napolitano, Director of the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the Department of Homeland Security; and the U.S. Department of State.

The Ninth Circuit Court has given the defense until June 21 to reply to Mr. Allen’s Appellant’s brief.

Mr. Allen requests that the public not contact the Ninth Circuit Court in regard to his case.

Source:

Redstate.com Bans the Eligibility Question

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF PRACTICED LAW IN SAME BUILDING AS JUDGE LAND, INFAMOUS SANCTIONER OF ORLY TAITZ

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

Eric Erickson praticed law for six years with Sell & Mellon, LLP, whose website displays an image of Judge Clay D. Land’s courthouse.

(Feb. 13, 2010) — Many Republicans are outraged following the discussion ban of the eligibility question imposed yesterday by the Editor-in-Chief of Redstate.com, a leading Republican News Blog published from Washington, D.C.

Eric Erickson justified his action in a post entitled, “Vigilance: I’m Banning Birfers, Truthers, and Groups Affiliated Therewith” for the following reasons:

We must be vigilant. We must be willing to draw a line in the sand and stand against fatuous nonsense that opens up the right to attacks by a left-leaning media intent on embarrassing the good people who have developed through the tea party movement a renewed sense of civic involvement.

Birfers and Truthers have no place among us. And they are most decidedly not welcome at RedState.

Erickson is evidently that kind of Republican who believes politics needs a sort of Inquisition-like approach, ever- vigilant for political “heretics,” and sees his duty as requiring him to ban them from exercising their free speech on constitutional issues.

He is also that kind of Republican effete who runs when Democrats shout “Boo!” on any issue, not wanting at all to seem politically incorrect to liberals.

He is also that kind of clever progressive, who, in order to hide the fact that he is banning a legitimate discussion, bans  at the same time a position often advocated by those with an extreme anti-American or anti-government stance  (in this case, “Truthers,” who believe 9-11 was engineered by the U.S. government), so as to appear to be middle-of-the-road.

Complete Story:

1961 Hawaii Births

The Obama File

According to the U. S. Public Health Service, births in the United States in 1961 were classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”

The category “white” includes, in addition to persons reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican.  With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father.  The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian.

In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.

Now we know the government is a stickler for codes so that big brother can keep track of all our statistics.  Well, according the the US CDC website there have been some revisions as of late to the types of codes for ‘race’ on vital records certificates.

Prior to 2009, the latest revision to the actual long form took place in 2004.  In 1961, a black person was listed as either ‘black’ or ‘negro’.  In 2004, the one showing on the CDC site shows he could have been listed as either ‘black’ or ‘African American’ as ethnicity then came into play.  Now in 2009 (revised 1/09), codes for those of the Negro race are listed and one can now be listed as just ‘African’ as is shown on Obama’s COLB.

US vital statistic birth records for 1961 in Hawaii (By place Of residence. Data refer only to births occurring within the United States. Based on a 50-percent sample. “Metropolitan counties” include all counties that are standard metropolitan statistical areas (metropolitan State economic areas for New England). “Nonmetropolitan counties” include all other counties):
On page 205 are the statistics for Live Births, non-White Hawaiian births:

•  12,198 — non-white births

•  12,110 — attended in a hospital by physician
•  50 — attended out of a hospital by physician or midwife

•  38 — unattended

So, that’s around 76 unattended births in the year Obama was born.  Was Barack Obama one of those 76?    Information regarding these birth came from the word or statement of a relative.  It might account for the Obama/Nordyke birth certificate numbers anomaly.

Source:

B. Insane Obama

The Betrayal

B. Insane Obama:As I sat listening to B. Hussein Obama give the strangest state of the union address I have ever heard, several thoughts came to mind about what he was saying. I brushed the thoughts aside now and then to yell, “You lie” at the television, but he did not stop. The alleged media pundits drove me further to the brink by saying the president was “doubling down” on his agenda. He didn’t double down, which implies he would have some money left over. He doesn’t. B. Insane Obama went all in last night. The Obama administration is behind me and last night I felt them there.

Back to the thoughts that Dear Leader so kindly inspired last night:

* Is he out of touch with America?
* Is he so arrogant he does not care how Americans feel?
* Are his aides hiding reality from him?
* If he is aware how America feels, how does he get his pants on?

Is B. Insane Obama out of touch with America? The initial response is “Yes” but it isn’t that simple. The seventy minute chastising of anyone and everything that speaks or has spoken out against Obama and his progressive agenda felt his wrath. The Supreme Court Justices were chastised by the arrogant one for supporting the Constitution, he even lied to do it. Because the GOP is listening to the voters, Obama said they lack leadership. Want another example? How about the commission to limit banker pay and tax them, retroactively, for having taken money from the feds (which is Un-Constitutional). The commission is made up of folks (all of them) with ties to Goldman-Sachs.

The Liar in Chief showed his arrogance by chastising the Senate for defeating his bill to spend more money, to create a commission on government spending, that won’t even start until 2011 and has no teeth. Congress controls spending, taxing and the deficit. That whole “Constitution” thing just keeps getting in the way. The Tony Soprano moment of the speech came when he said he would issue an executive order to circumvent the legislative leg of the peoples government. Last night the man-child president showed his fangs multiple times and it was ugly. He insists on forcing health care on America, despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not want the drugs he is dealing. And, despite the fact that global whining is last on the list of things Obama should be working on, so says the American people, Obama states he will force his green agenda (Watermelon Communism-Green on the outside and red on the inside) and carbon reduction strategy on America, while spending money to create jobs. Nice. The carbon reduction agenda that Dear Leader has embraced will cause America to lose so many jobs, his fundamental transformation of America will be complete. America will become a third world country with Obama as the tin pot dictator.

Complete Story: