Sunday, January 27, 2013
http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf
http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf
Conservatives against Obama and his liberal adgenda. no longer bush's fault This is for all you liberals who like to troll this page that live in the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Idaho, and Oregon) If you have a gun and want a $100 (possible more depending on the gun) cash instead of an Amazon Card ...private message me.. keep in mind you can buy your beer cigarettes and drugs with cash.. Amazon Card not so much... I do have several friends that are looking to purchase any and all guns and or ammo that you no longer feel the need to keep. Peter
DEATH OF AMERICA: LEAKED U.S. ARMY DOCUMENT OUTLINES PLAN FOR RE-EDUCATION CAMPS IN AMERICA
DEATH OF AMERICA: LEAKED U.S. ARMY DOCUMENT OUTLINES PLAN FOR RE-EDUCATION CAMPS IN AMERICA
+298-8
Political activists would be pacified to sympathize with the government
<a
href='http://ads1.bulletinmarketing.com/ads/www/delivery/ck.php?n=ad2910d6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE'
target='_blank'><img
src='http://ads1.bulletinmarketing.com/ads/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=18&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=ad2910d6'
border='0' alt='' /></a>
RELATED: Yes, The Re-Education Camp Manual Does Apply Domestically to U.S. Citizens
A leaked U.S. Army document prepared for the Department of Defense contains shocking plans
for “political activists” to be pacified by “PSYOP officers” into
developing an “appreciation of U.S. policies” while detained in prison
camps inside the United States.
The document, entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF) was originally released on a restricted basis to the DoD in February 2010, but has now been leaked online.
The manual outlines policies for processing detainees
into internment camps both globally and inside the United States.
International agencies like the UN and the Red Cross are named as
partners in addition to domestic federal agencies including the
Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.
The document makes it clear that the policies apply
“within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil
authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement
and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents,
terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.”
The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations
within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The
Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking
his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.”
Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of
detainees, the manual includes the designation of “civilian internees,”
in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”
Once the detainees have been processed into the
internment camp, the manual explains how they will be “indoctrinated,”
with a particular focus on targeting political dissidents, into
expressing support for U.S. policies.
The re-education process is the responsibility of the “Psychological Operations
Officer,” whose job it is to design “PSYOP products that are designed
to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility
authority and regulations,” according to the document.
The manual lists the following roles that are designated to the “PSYOP team”.
- Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.- Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes.- Identifies political activists.- Provides loudspeaker support (such as administrative announcements and facility instructions when necessary).- Helps the military police commander control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.- Plans and executes a PSYOP program that produces an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.
Remember, this is not restricted to insurgents in Iraq
who are detained in prison camps – the manual makes it clear that the
policies also apply “within U.S. territory” under the auspices of the
DHS and FEMA. The document adds that, “Resettlement operations may
require large groups of civilians to be quartered temporarily (less than
6 months) or semipermanently (more than 6 months).”
The historical significance of states using internment
camps to re-educate detainees centers around the fact that it is almost
exclusively practiced by repressive and dictatorial regimes like the
former Soviet Union and Stalinist regimes like modern day North Korea.
We have exhaustively documented preparations for the
mass internment of citizens inside America, but this is the first time
that language concerning the re-education of detainees, in particular
political activists, has cropped up in our research.
In 2009, the National Guard posted a number of job opportunities looking for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists” to work in “civilian internee camps” within the United States.
In December last year it was also revealed that
Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and
outfit “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the
United States.
In 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to
build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of
immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new
programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.
Rex 84,
short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of
a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the
same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.
During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was
revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill”
developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act,
which was signed by Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, American citizens
can be kidnapped and detained indefinitely without trial.
Read a portion of the Internment and Resettlement Operations manual below.
Presidential Eligibility
In the 2008 election both major parties nominated candidates whose
eligibility is dubious. For Barack Obama the question was whether he was
born in Hawaii, which is U.S. soil. For John McCain the question was
whether the panama Canal Zone, where he was born, was U.S. soil. It is
not, and being born of parents both of whom were U.S. citizens did not
make him a "natural-born" citizen, although a statute was later adopted
naturalizing such persons at birth.The U.S. Constitution provides as follows:
Article II Section 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; 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.
Amendment XIV Section 1:The main authority for the original meaning of "natural born" is William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, edited by St. George Tucker, a Founder, published in 1803, especially Chapter 10:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.
... the king has also the prerogative of conferring privileges 53 upon private persons. Such as granting place or precedence to any of his subjects, as shall seem good to his royal wisdom:g or such as converting aliens,54 or persons born out of the king's dominions, into denizens; whereby some very considerable privileges of natural-born subjects are conferred upon them. Such also is the prerogative of erecting corporations;55 whereby a number of private persons are united and knit together, and enjoy many liberties, powers, and immunities in their politic capacity, which they were utterly incapable of in their natural. Of aliens, denizens, natural-born, and naturalized subjects, I shall speak more largely in a subsequent chapter;
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England;
... the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire.
Thus allegiance, then, both express and implied, is the duty of all the king's subjects, under the distinctions here laid down, of local and temporary, or universal and perpetual. Their rights are also distinguishable by the same criterions of time and locality; natural-born subjects having a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born within the king's ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.10 In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.cSt. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:
Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.Blackstone uses the term "subject" rather than "citizen", so are citizens the same as subjects for this purpose? We have from Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.Before Blackstone, the leading authority for the meaning of constitutional language is Edward Coke, who explains in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377, that a child born on the soil of England to a foreign national visiting the country who is not an invader is a "natural born subject" of England:
[A foreign national]... so long as he was within the King's protection; which [though] but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a [natural bond] he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;The subject of whether jus soli or jus sanguinis applies to the United States came up in a debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 1789, when James Madison said:
It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.That was not on the point of presidential eligibility, but it does show which rule applies.
Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Driot des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I:
§ 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.But he was writing of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations) for countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains:
§ 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.
However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.There is no proof that deliberations took place at the convention on the subject of the letter. While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without explanation. The Convention accepted the change without further debate.
In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759-1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791-1799), wrote that
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. 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.The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.The closest the U.S. Supreme Court has come to addressing eligibility to be president was in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;However, some who argue against Obama's eligibility bring up the issue of the citizenship of his parents, saying that even if he were natural born on U.S. soil, he would not be a citizen because he would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, as provided in the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time of adoption of that amendment, that would have excluded the children of unassimilated Amerinds, foreign diplomats, and foreign invaders, discussed in the opinion in Ankeny v. Governor, which although not a precedent, provides an excellent compilation of the arguments pertaining to this topic. Amerinds have since all been brought within the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no claim that either of Barack Obama's parents was a foreign diplomat or invader at the time of his birth.
Some mis-cite the opinion in Minor v. Happersett, but it only states, in dictum, that natural birth and U.S. citizen parentage would be sufficient to establish U.S. citizenship at birth, not that U.S. citizenship parentage was necessary for the child to be a U.S. citizen.
Most of the confusion over the eligibility of John McCain seems to stem from the mistaken notion that "citizen at birth" has the same meaning as "natural born citizen". The meaning is not the same. A naturalization statute can make a person a citizen at birth, but that does not make him "natural born".
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401These first two correspond to "natural born". The rest are all "naturalized by statute". The Code lumps both into the same section, which is not uncommon. Don't look to the U.S. Code for subtle distinctions. It is not, in general, the law. It is evidence of the law. The Code is derived from the statutes by an office in the House of Representatives, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, established for that purpose. They don't include all the statutes, and don't always get it right.
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) naturalization definedThe qualifier "after birth" doesn't mean by an official act done after birth. It means from the moment of birth, or in other words, not before birth. A fetus is not naturalized by statute. Most statutes conferring nationality/citizenship at birth were passed before most of the individuals to whom they apply were born. Some, however, were retroactive. An example of that was the statute that made McCain a U.S. citizen at birth, passed after his birth. But that is naturalization, not natural birth.
(a)(23) The term ''naturalization'' means the conferring of nationality [NOT "citizenship" or "U.S. citizenship", but "nationality", which means "U.S. national"] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
One might think that while all citizens at birth may not be natural born citizens, all natural born citizens are also citizens at birth. However, it is possible for someone to be natural born without being a citizen at birth, or even being a citizen. Being a child of foreign diplomats or invaders is one way, but it is also possible that someone might be natural born on territory not incorporated into the United States at the time. For example, natural born citizens of Puerto Rico are not natural born citizens of the United States, eligible to be president, while it remains a protectorate or dependency. However, citizens of Puerto Rico have been naturalized by statute to be citizens of the United States at birth. Now if Puerto Rico were admitted as a state, its natural born citizens would then become natural born citizens of the United States, eligible to be president, if otherwise qualified. If it later seceded (with the consent of Congress) its natural born citizens would cease to be natural born citizens of the U.S.
Natural born citizenship could also be lost by someone who was natural born on a territory initially claimed by the United States as part of its incorporated territory, but later ceded to the other nation that claims it. The boundary between the U.S. and Mexico was adjusted as the result of shifts in the path of the Rio Grande River, ceding some territory to Mexico that had some people living on it, who were given a choice whether to become U.S. citizens. There are also some disputed territories between the U.S. and Canada, although there may not be any people born or living on them. Other territories disputed between the U.S. and some other nation are not considered incorporated by the United States, but protectorates or dependencies.
There is nothing about the concept of "naturalization" that requires some "process", other than the enactment of a declaratory statute. A statute can make a person a citizen at birth of territory that does not include the location where one is born. That is the naturalization process. But it is not "natural birth", which depends only on the location of birth on a particular spot on the Earth. Whatever anyone might later want to call that spot or the territory surrounding it, the child is natural born to that spot. He is not naturalized to that spot. He may be naturalized to another spot, or territory that does not include that spot. That is a change of status, and it is called "naturalization".
The concept of citizenship is derived from denizenship, which requires a spot but not a government.
Eligibility for office
The burden of proof is on the claimant to office. The presumption must be ineligibility unless it is proved otherwise.
That direction of presumption is not, by the way, the same as for citizenship for individuals already on U.S. soil, for whom the burden is on someone seeking to deport them. On the other hand, one seeking to vote, or to re-enter the U.S. from outside, has the burden to prove citizenship, although it has historically been sufficient to do this by a notary who knows the individual. There is no constitutional authority to require anyone to present any particular form of identification, especially one issued by the government, that one is not constitutionally required to have, and there is no constitutional authority to require anyone to even have a name, much less any particular form of identification. Names are applied to us by other people. No one owns his name. All anyone can say is that "some people call me xyz". But other people can call anyone anything they please. That includes government authorities. And there is no authority to require anyone to know or say what other people call him. Not that government actors don't try anyway.
Summarizing:
- Only the location of birth on U.S. soil makes one "natural born", but not necessarily a citizen. The present exceptions would be if a parent is a foreign diplomat representing a foreign nation (it is possible to be a U.S. citizen serving as ambassador from a foreign nation) or a foreign invader (not just someone who overstays a visa). Originally when the 14th amendment was adopted it also excluded Native Americans who were not assimilated, but regarded as "domestic nations" within the territory of the U.S. but not part of U.S. society. They are all considered assimilated and part of society now.
- U.S. soil for this purpose means "incorporated territory". That is territory that is not a protectorate like Puerto Rico or Guam, or a leasehold like the Panama Canal Zone or Guantanamo. That does not include U.S. military bases abroad, the grounds of foreign embassies abroad, territorial waters, or the space within U.S. flag vessels on or over international waters or Antarctica. A person born in Arizona, Hawaii, or Alaska before those territories became states would be eligible, because it is "incorporation" and not statehood that makes them U.S. soil.
- "Citizen at birth" is not "natural born citizenship". Many people are made citizens at birth by statute. That is what the statute did that retroactively made John McCain a U.S. citizen at birth, or the statute that makes persons born in Puerto Rico U.S. citizens at birth, or 8 USC 1401, but those are naturalization statutes, and one can be naturalized at birth. It doesn't have to be done after birth.
- No Supreme Court opinion has "defined" natural born citizenship for purposes of presidential eligibility. The cases cited were either dictum or concerned ordinary citizenship sufficient to vote or hold office other than that of president.
- The evidence we have of the original meaning of "natural born" citizen (although they used the term "subject") come from the commentaries of William Blackstone and Edward Coke. Vattel is not a correct source on this point, because he was a Swiss writing about the rule used on the European Continent, jus sanguinis, not the different rule used in Britain and its colonies, jus soli.
- The burden of proof of eligibility is on the candidate, not on one challenging eligibility, and he must be presumed to be ineligible unless or until he can produce the proof. The image of the document that has been offered is clearly fraudulent, no matter who may attest otherwise, because the original image can be viewed in the tool used to produce it, Adobe Illustrator, which shows the separated edit layers that reveal the history of how it was composed using pieces of image from different sources.
- The Congressional Research Service is not a reliable scholarly source. They are like Wikipedia, a place to start but not authoritative. I have worked with the CRS and they harbor a lot of what historians call "law office history".
- Although one could seek a declaratory judgment from a court, there is no point at which one can get injunctive relief. The only point at which eligibility can be effectively challenged is at the point Congress counts the electoral votes, and no court has jurisdiction to tell Congress how to do that. At that point it is up to the members of Congress to voluntarily comply with the Constitution. It does not work to try to exclude an ineligible candidate from the ballot because people are not voting for the candidate, they are voting for electors, and it is only the eligibility of the electors that matters at that point.
- "Natural born" eligibility
- Barack Obama
- Image of alleged Obama Certificate of Live Birth, taken from the White House website on 04/27/2011, which is an obvious forgery.
- Obama Fraudulent Certificate of Live Birth. Analysis and discussion of the image posted.
- Barack Obama: Original Long Form Birth Certificate. Analysis by Mara Zebest, 06/29/2011.
- Layer upon layer: Opening Obama's birth certificate in Adobe Illustrator, by Michael Bates on April 27, 2011.
- Request pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3332 to inform the grand jury of whether President Barack Obama may have violated Federal criminal law, by Montgomery Blair Sibley, 01/12/2012.
- 100% Proof Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate is fake, video by Jeff Duff, 04/28/2011.
- White House Posts PDF of Certificate of Live Birth. Analysis.
- Proof Obama's 4/27/11 "Long Form Certificate of Birth" is Forged!, video, 04/27/2011.
- Arpaio: Obama birth certificate is a fraud, U.K. Guardian, 03/01/2012. Arizona sheriff's six-month investigation ends with Arpaio vowing to find whoever 'forged' Barack Obama's birth certificate.
- John McCain
The
Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”
A common
misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the
Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite
clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in
the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens.
Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the
distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and
“citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born
in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it
only makes one “a citizen.”
The Fourteenth
amendment states in Section 1,
Section
1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.”
Obviously missing
is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In
fact what is obviously included in the text is the term
“naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals
with citizenship.
All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside.
The second deals with
prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship
from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.
No
state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The fifth section
details something very important, it reads
Section
5 – “The
Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.”
Article 1, Section
8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over
citizenship is found here. It reads,
“To
establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of
Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
To make the freed
slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th
Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution.
Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th
Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by
Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the
chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.
“I
find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what
is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any
foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural
born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the
Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that
any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a
foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”
John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong.
Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866),
Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
There is no doubt that anyone born under
the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized
citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They
are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to
look at the first clause carefully.
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The words “born or naturalized”
are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies
either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not
“a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that
simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction”
confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term
“citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status,
then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it
would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run
for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural
born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the
universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and
naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification
of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born
geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural
born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple
citizenship to the children born to aliens.
1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83
U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens.
“The phrase, "subject to its
jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of
ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the
United States.”
2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment
draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens.
“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.”
3. Elk v.
Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the
jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the
United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates
two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The
persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident
meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to
the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their
political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the
words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization
in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized,
either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or
collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is
acquired.”
4. Wong Kim
Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born
citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of
citizenship never descends
in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization
acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by
statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as
the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of
cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born
parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born
person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction
of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship
is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.
As you can see from the intent of the
Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural
born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child
of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered
is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had
any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen
minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen
under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen
under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that
dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be
transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
While many patriots will argue with clear
conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean
both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the
jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in
accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of
the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis
citizenship?
There three ways for a person claim
citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli,
“the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of
birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis,
“the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The
third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis,
and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen.
Since any citizenship under Jus solis is
codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship
via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This
act states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be
passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the
time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at
least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack
Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim “natural born
citizen” status.
Common sense tells us that both Jus soli
and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers
intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For
imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America,
giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with
their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and
that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st
birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their
citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United
States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and
stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates
with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their
veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that
countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural
loyalties are too blood.
“To disregard such a deliberate
choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first
principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of
the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning;
for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily
used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the
construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this
proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the
illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the
utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
The Constitution directly specified 3 types
of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those
who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the
Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this
amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born
citizen.”
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Immigration File http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Immigration File http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
Barack Obama Sr – Shockingly, Harvard Says It Can’t Verify Government Documents Showing They Wanted Obama’s Dad Deported…
Here is the Link to the Document File - and Article LAKE HAVASU CITY, Ariz.
– Harvard University officials are speaking out on the release of the
immigration file on Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. Documents uncovered
through a Freedom of Information Act request to the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, formerly known as the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, show that Harvard University officials
worked with the INS to deny Obama’s student visa extension.An INS investigator, M.F. McKeon, wrote on June 8, 1964: “They (Harvard officials) weren’t very impressed with him and asked us to hold up action on his application until they decided what action they could take in order to get rid of him. They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had.”
Another memo by McKeon, dated May 19, 1964, says: “OBAMA has passed his general exams, which indicates on academic grounds he is entitled to stay around here and write his thesis; however, they are going to try to cook something up to ease him out. All three will have to agree to this, however. They are planning on telling him that they will not give him any money, and that he’d better return to Kenya and prepare his thesis at home.”
Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Harvard University, disputed those allegations.
“While we cannot verify accounts of conversations that occurred nearly 50 years ago, a review of our existing files did not find any support for either the language or the implied intent described by the U.S. government official in the government documents,” Neal said.
Neal said that university documents predating the INS file, which was compiled between 1961 and 1965, indicate “the University’s Center for International Affairs faced serious constraints in providing financial support for research by international graduate students in Cambridge, and that these students were required to secure and demonstrate independent and sufficient sources of funding in order to remain on campus.”
Documents show Obama, Sr. was denied an extension of his student visa in July, 1964 and subsequently returned to Kenya. In 1965, Obama, Sr. attempted to return to the United States. The INS file includes a letter from Harvard Registrar Robert Shenton written to Obama, Sr., on Nov. 16, 1965, that says the elder Obama had not registered his thesis title with the Department of Economics and therefore the university did not authorize his I-20, a document issued by a college for a student so that the student may obtain a student visa, for his return to the country. “Under the circumstances, I could not consider issuing an I-20 to you until the following steps have been completed and the Economics Department approves your return,” Shenton wrote.
The steps required of Obama, Sr., included informing the Economics Department of the thesis title; informing the department of the status of his thesis; and sending the department any completed pages of the document. Neal said the university would confirm that Obama, Sr. was a student at Harvard from 1962-1964, and earned a Master’s degree in Economics.
Multiple attempts to get comment from the White House press office have not been returned. (Read Full Article)
Wow, what an extensive document release. Looks like Barack Obama Sr. was a dubious character. Some of the more pertinent documents pictured below. (See Document File Here)
Barack Obama's father 'forced out of US in 1960s'
Barack Obama's father was forced out of the US in the 1960s amid concerns about his "playboy ways", it has emerged.
Barack Obama poses with his father in an undated family snapshot from the 1960's Photo: REUTERS
A government file on Barack Obama Sr. said that Harvard University, where he
was studying, told immigration officials it would “cook something up” to
force him to return to Kenya in 1964.
The immigration file, which was released under freedom of information laws,
contains records of Mr Obama Sr.’s time as a student at the universities of
Hawaii and Harvard between 1959 and 1964.
It may solve the long-running mystery, described in the President’s memoir, of
why his father really left the US, only returning to see his son once before
he died.
An April 1961 memo said that a University of Hawaii employee called to report
that Mr Obama Sr. had married Ann Dunham, the future president’s mother.
She warned that he was already married to a woman in Kenya and had been
“running around with several girls” since arriving and that he had been
warned to curb his “playboy ways”.
Mr Obama Sr. and Miss Dunham divorced in January 1964, by which time he had
left Hawaii and was studying for a PhD in Economics at Harvard.
The file said two months later, concerns were raised over Mr Obama Sr.’s relationship with a Kenyan high-school student on an exchange scheme in nearby Boston, who abruptly travelled to England.
“The suspicion exists,” the March 1964 document said, “that she may have gone to London for [redacted]”. It is unclear what the next word is. At the time, abortions were illegal in the US.
Harvard was contacted by May 1964, and while Mr Obama Sr. had passed his exams, the university agreed it would “try to cook something up to ease him out”.
Mr Obama Sr., also described as a “slippery character”, was told that funding for his studies had run out and that he must complete his thesis in Kenya.
The file said officials then received a call in July 1964 from a mother distressed that her 27-year-old daughter had agreed to marry Mr Obama Sr.
The woman is presumed to be Ruth Nidesand, who became Mr Obama Sr.'s third wife and was white, like Miss Dunham.
At the time several US states still had laws banning inter-racial marriage. Miss Nidesand left the US to be with Mr Obama Sr. the following month.
A spokesman for Harvard University did not return a request for comment.
President Obama's father's Kenyan heritage was a key aspect of the so-called 'birther' conspiracy theory that alleged he was born in Africa.
Mr Obama moved to quash the theory once and for all on Wednesday by releasing his "long-form" birth certificate. The campaign had in recent weeks been led by Donald Trump, the property tycoon and would-be Republican presidential candidate.
Following Mr Obama's birth certificate release, Mr Trump's political opponents called on him to make public his tax returns.
The host of the US version of "The Apprentice" had said earlier this month that he would make the returns known if Mr Obama released the birth certificate.
Robert Gibbs, the former White House spokesman, told the Politico website: "Donald Trump said he'd release his tax returns as soon as the president released his birth certificate, so the ball is in his court now, and I know everybody is anxious to see his tax returns over the last ten years."
Mr Trump responded by calling Mr Gibbs a "loser" and added: "Yes, at the appropriate time I'm going to do it."
He suggested the appropriate time would come if he formally announces a presidential bid.
"If I announce, I will have to release very detailed information about my wealth," he said. "That is certainly something I'd be thinking about doing anyway. But before I do anything I have to make the decision in June and the first thing I'm going to be releasing will be financials,"
Mr Trump has said that people will be "shocked" by the strength of his financial records and that he would "love" to give his tax returns.
His net worth was recently put at $2.7 billion (£1.6 billion) by Forbes magazine, and Mr Trump himself claims it is "substantially in excess of that."
The mogul was in New Hampshire, where a key presidential primary is held, and attempted to claim credit for Mr Obama releasing his birth certificate.
He said: "I have done a great service to the American people. He did it for me. The fact is, I get things done." Mr Gibbs said: "The American people are smarter than the candidacy that he is offering."
The file said two months later, concerns were raised over Mr Obama Sr.’s relationship with a Kenyan high-school student on an exchange scheme in nearby Boston, who abruptly travelled to England.
“The suspicion exists,” the March 1964 document said, “that she may have gone to London for [redacted]”. It is unclear what the next word is. At the time, abortions were illegal in the US.
Harvard was contacted by May 1964, and while Mr Obama Sr. had passed his exams, the university agreed it would “try to cook something up to ease him out”.
Mr Obama Sr., also described as a “slippery character”, was told that funding for his studies had run out and that he must complete his thesis in Kenya.
The file said officials then received a call in July 1964 from a mother distressed that her 27-year-old daughter had agreed to marry Mr Obama Sr.
The woman is presumed to be Ruth Nidesand, who became Mr Obama Sr.'s third wife and was white, like Miss Dunham.
At the time several US states still had laws banning inter-racial marriage. Miss Nidesand left the US to be with Mr Obama Sr. the following month.
A spokesman for Harvard University did not return a request for comment.
President Obama's father's Kenyan heritage was a key aspect of the so-called 'birther' conspiracy theory that alleged he was born in Africa.
Mr Obama moved to quash the theory once and for all on Wednesday by releasing his "long-form" birth certificate. The campaign had in recent weeks been led by Donald Trump, the property tycoon and would-be Republican presidential candidate.
Following Mr Obama's birth certificate release, Mr Trump's political opponents called on him to make public his tax returns.
The host of the US version of "The Apprentice" had said earlier this month that he would make the returns known if Mr Obama released the birth certificate.
Robert Gibbs, the former White House spokesman, told the Politico website: "Donald Trump said he'd release his tax returns as soon as the president released his birth certificate, so the ball is in his court now, and I know everybody is anxious to see his tax returns over the last ten years."
Mr Trump responded by calling Mr Gibbs a "loser" and added: "Yes, at the appropriate time I'm going to do it."
He suggested the appropriate time would come if he formally announces a presidential bid.
"If I announce, I will have to release very detailed information about my wealth," he said. "That is certainly something I'd be thinking about doing anyway. But before I do anything I have to make the decision in June and the first thing I'm going to be releasing will be financials,"
Mr Trump has said that people will be "shocked" by the strength of his financial records and that he would "love" to give his tax returns.
His net worth was recently put at $2.7 billion (£1.6 billion) by Forbes magazine, and Mr Trump himself claims it is "substantially in excess of that."
The mogul was in New Hampshire, where a key presidential primary is held, and attempted to claim credit for Mr Obama releasing his birth certificate.
He said: "I have done a great service to the American people. He did it for me. The fact is, I get things done." Mr Gibbs said: "The American people are smarter than the candidacy that he is offering."
The Case Against Barack Obama, Sr.
By Don Wilkie
It
is widely held that Barack Obama, Sr., goat herder from Kenya, is the
father of President Obama. We now know that this contention is probably
false.
In Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father,
he identifies Barack Obama, Sr. as his father. This book has been the
primary source of information for all who have written about him. Yet
two strong supporters of the president -- David Remnick, author of The Bridge, a biography of Obama, and Janny Scott, author of A Singular Woman, a biography of Ann Dunham -- have expressed doubts about the factual basis of Dreams:Remnick: "Obama's memoir is a mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention and artful shaping."
Scott: "He gives his account of his parents' fleeting coming together and breaking apart in language and cadences reminiscent of those of folk tales or myths."Thanks to Jack Cashill, we now know that Dreams from My Father was in large part a creation of Obama's neighbor and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, a man more interested in a "narrative" than in history. So, as a practical matter, when trying to determine the truth about Obama's origins, everything from Dreams must be considered suspect.
The Wedding That Wasn't
There is no record that Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, and Barack Obama, Sr. were ever married. There is no marriage license. There were no witnesses. But we do know from Ann's registration at the University of Washington that Ann did take Obama's name, so we must analyze what we know about their relationship.
Ann supposedly met Obama in a Russian language class, one of two classes that we know Ann took at the University of Hawaii in the fall semester of 1960. The meeting story, however, comes from Dreams and is therefore unreliable. Sally Jacobs, in her book, The Other Barack, makes reference to "Barack Obama's transcript from the University of Hawaii, Syracuse University, Frank C. Laubach Collection." The transcript would show us if Obama Sr. took the same Russian class that Ann did. When I requested the same records that Sally Jacobs had seen, Nicole Dittrich, the Reading Room supervisor, informed me that "...Obama Sr.'s Hawaii transcript[s are] currently missing from our collection."
For the sake of argument, we will assume, regardless of how or when they met, that Ann and Obama said they were married. We will also assume that they were in love. We would then logically assume that the pair lived and acted like lovers. They did not.
Heather Smathers, through a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA), posted on the internet Obama Sr.'s United States Immigration file. From the documents (55 pages in all) we learn that Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham lived separately.
On page 35, William Wood wrote, "Barack Obama II, child living with mother (she resides with her parents and subject [Obama Sr.] resides at 1482 Alencastre St.)." The memo was dated 8/31/1961, only 27 days after their child was supposedly born. Their respective residences were over 7 miles away from each other.
Compounding their geographical separation is the fact that there is no documentary evidence that Ann or Obama Sr. ever drove a car while in Hawaii. David Maraniss in "Into the Story" relates that "...she [Ann] never got a license and did not drive her entire life." Obama was so poor that it is hard to imagine that he could afford roller skates, let alone a car.
Even more peculiar is the fact that Ann Dunham left her parents' home with her putatively newborn baby and enrolled in classes at the University of Washington in late August 1961. This is confirmed by enrollment records from the University of Washington. The classes she took were night classes.
After Ann's departure to Seattle, the couple would not see each other for ten years. From an article by John Griffin of the Honolulu Advertiser, we learn that Obama Sr. left Hawaii for Harvard on 6/22/1962. Ann did not return to Hawaii until late fall 1962 or early winter 1963, where she again enrolled in classes at the University of Hawaii.
One might argue that when Obama and Ann first told of their marriage, they really were in love, but something happened that caused a separation. This contention is undermined by the immigration documents. On page 39, a 4/10/1961 memo from Lyle Dahlin mentions his suspicion that the marriage was not a real one. He wrote, "Recommend that Subject be closely questioned before another extention [sic] is granted - and denial be considered. If his USC [United States Citizen] wife tries to petition for him make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bona-fide of the marriage."
The earliest record we have of a marriage comes from this same memo: "Mrs. McCabe, University of Hawaii, Foreign Student advisor, called on 4/10/61 and reported that BARACK H OBAMA, a student at the University since 1959 was married on February 2, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham."
Page 42 is an "APPLICATION BY ALIEN STUDENT FOR PERMISSION TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT." It was filled out, by hand, by Obama Sr. on 3/3/1961, only one month after his supposed marriage. Section 24 asked, "Economic necessity (explain how financial circumstances have changed since admission or change of status to student)." Obama Sr. wrote, "This is because I did not come with enough for the entire period of my stay and thought would get some from scholarship and work." What is glaringly missing is any mention of a wife and soon-to-be child -- important information, one would think, for a foreign student seeking permission to work.
If anything had happened that ended their love for each other, it would have to have happened in the month of February 1961 for Obama not to mention his pregnant wife in March. Yet, in April, Mrs. McCabe reported that they were married. One must assume that it was either Obama or Ann who supplied that information, as there was no marriage record.
The next time Obama filled out this application was on August 31, 1961 (reminder: nn and baby are now in Seattle). On it, he stated that he was married, but he did something curious. He wrote down a name but crossed it out, then filled in "Ann S. Dunham." The crossed out name looks like it starts with a "K" like the "K" in Kenya just above it. His wife's name in Kenya was Kezia. Whether the scratched out name was Kezia or not, it's clear he wrote down another name before writing in Ann's. Also, he got Ann's name wrong. Stanley Ann Dunham, or S. Ann Dunham, is correct, but not Ann S. Dunham. He left the box for name and address of child blank.
We have photographic evidence that Obama spent time with students from the East West Center (EWC). The EWC was created to promote understanding among the peoples of the Pacific Rim. The Center describes itself as "[a] public, nonprofit organization with funding from the U.S. government." It was located on the campus of the University of Hawaii.
The first sizable group of EWC students arrived in Hawaii in September 1961, after Ann had left for Seattle. Lois Duggan, a September enrollee, wrote to her fellow students when Barack Obama was elected president: "We all converged on Honolulu a month after he was born there (no, not in a manger!) and knew -- well or in passing -- his father, though most of us then had no idea there was a baby." It appears that Obama Sr. never spoke about his wife and child to his EWC friends -- strange behavior for a man who was supposedly in love.
Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie also claims to have known Obama Sr. while he was in Hawaii; he says he was his "best friend." Most of what Governor Abercrombie has said about Ann and Obama Sr. has proved false. In The Bridge, a credulous David Remnick recorded a whopper: "'Stanley was disappointed that Barack had left his daughter, but not too disappointed,' Neal Abercrombie said. 'He figured that the marriage was going to fail sooner or later and so it might as well not go on so long that it would hurt Little Barry, as he always called him.'"
Ann left Obama behind in August of 1961, yet Abercrombie would have us believe that Obama left Ann behind in June of 1962. Clearly, Abercrombie can't be believed. A "best friend" would know the facts, and Abercrombie obviously does not.
Finally, on May 29, 1962, Obama wrote his sponsor Tom Mboya: "You know my wife is in Nairobi there and I would really appreciate any help you may give her." Here Obama is talking about his wife Kezia, whom he left in Kenya. Thoughts of a wife and child in America seem never to have crossed his mind.
OK, so they weren't in love.
If the supposed marriage to Ann wasn't one of love, perhaps Obama Sr. was forced to marry her, shotgun-style. The few documents we have argue against this.
The documents make clear that Obama Sr. was given a "CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY." The previously mentioned memo from Lyle Dahlin noted that "[i]f he were convicted of bigamy we might get a deportation charge but not before." Obama, faced with a shotgun marriage, would only have had to claim he still had a wife in Kenya.
Perhaps Obama and Ann had a one-night fling and Obama consented to marry Ann for moral reasons, without coercion. In this scenario one would assume that Obama would take pride in and responsibility for raising his son. This assumption is again challenged by the documents we have.
The first mention of a son in the immigration documents is on August 17, 1962. Obama was apparently in Baltimore on his way to Harvard. But the son he mentions is Roy Obama, from his wife Kezia. Barack Obama II isn't listed as a son until April 21, 1964. This came as immigration officials were debating whether to ship Obama Sr. back to Kenya because, as M.F. McKeon of the Immigration Service wrote, "They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn't seem to figure out how many wives he had." Obama Sr. listed the address of his son Barack as "C/O University of Hawaii, Honolulu Hawaii (page 14)." It appears Obama had no idea where his son was or how to contact him directly.
But the Birth Certificate Lists Obama Sr. as the Father
There are four anomalies in our president's recently released birth certificate regarding his father.
The father's race is listed as African. Obama Sr. had to know that there were both white and black "Africans," as both South Africa and Rhodesia were ruled by white minorities. Obama Sr. was quoted by John Griffin in the Honolulu Advertiser saying that it is "rather strange, even rather amusing to see Caucasians discriminated against here." It is difficult to imagine that the father would give his race as "African."
The father's birthplace is given as Kenya, East Africa. This is like saying United States, Central North America. On his "Alien Registration Fingerprint Chart" (page 52), his place of birth is listed as "Kisumu-Nyanza, Kenya." Obviously, Obama knew where he was born.
The baby's name is listed as "Barack Hussein Obama, II." But on page 14 of the immigration documents, Obama Sr. wrote the child's name as "Barack Obama 2nd."
Finally, Obama Sr.'s age is incorrect. The birth certificate states that he was 25, when in reality he was 27. For the entire time he was in Hawaii, he listed his birth date as 6/18/1934 on all of his immigration documents, making him 27 on August 4th 1961, the alleged birth date of his alleged son.
Listing his race as African, botching his place of birth, the ignorance of his son's official name, and, most significantly, reporting an incorrect age, leaves us with only one conclusion: Obama Sr. was nowhere around when the birth certificate was being filled out.
The Picture
There is a picture of Ann's father, Stanley Dunham, standing next to Obama Sr., with his arm around him. The picture has generated much discussion in the blogosphere.
A careful review reveals many details which prove that it is a going away picture -- probably taken on June 22, 1962, while Ann and baby were still in Seattle. Some have argued that because there are leis around Obama Sr.'s neck, it has to be an arrival picture. However, the website "Blooms of Hawaii" states that "[a] lei is bestowed on another for many reasons -- it can symbolize love, friendship, parting, a wish for safety, and many other messages of peace."
If you look carefully at the 21 people in the picture, you can see that they are composed of two distinct groups: friends of Obama and crew from the boat that is taking him to the mainland. The two men in the middle wearing sailor suits and the man kneeling in the front with a steward or cook's jacket on indicate crew, but some of Obama's East-West Center friends appear in the picture. (Note: "best friend" Abercrombie does not!) They all arrived in Hawaii after September 1961, making this likely a going away picture.
What makes sense?
None of the scenarios for marriage we have discussed so far -- love, or love with a separation, a shotgun marriage, or doing the "right thing" -- makes any sense with the facts we know. There is one scenario, however, that makes a lot of sense.
Let's assume that Ann was impregnated by someone unknown and was facing the stigma of becoming an unwed mother. Obama Sr., for a fee, agreed to "marry" Ann. Being a foreign national from Kenya, there would be no liability for him (child support, etc.), and it might have been a help for extending his stay in America.
Ann's taking Obama's name for the sake of being "respectable" would explain all of what we now know: why there was no love in the relationship, the separate living arrangements, Ann and Barry leaving Obama and moving to Seattle, the EWC friends knowing nothing about Ann and child, Obama's letter to Mboya mentioning his wife Kezia, all of the mistakes on the birth certificate, and the apparent friendship between Obama and Ann's father Stanley.
The immigration documents support this scenario, as they show just how broke Obama Sr. was. On 3/3/1961 Obama Sr. claimed $1,200 in income and $2,000 in annual expenses (page 42). This was just one month after he was supposedly married. He had a shortfall of $800. He was a man in serious need of funds. A pay for service arrangement is eminently believable, especially when the immigration documents show that he earned $5.00 a day as a dishwasher at the Ink Blot Coffee Shop (page 43) and worked for the Dole Corporation as an "ordinary summer worker" for $1.33 per hour (page 35).
But if they weren't married, why did Ann file for divorce?
Ann filed for divorce in January of 1964. Obama was notified while at Harvard; he signed an acknowledgement, and that was the extent of his involvement. My guess as to why Ann filed for a divorce, when there was no marriage, is that she was now in love with Lolo Soetoro. She wanted to make sure there was no legal reason, such as common-law marriage, that would potentially prevent their union. Ann and Lolo were married in March of 1965.
We won't be fooled again...
The evidence is clear: there is no license; there was no marriage. Ann took Obama's name, but there was no love, no estrangement, no coercion, no selfless gallantry in the "marriage." Obama was a financially desperate student who got a big break when the Dunhams found him and paid him to be a father in name only. Ann and son Barry went on with their lives, and Obama continued on with his studies.
Is it possible that our president doesn't know this? I find that hard to believe. I do know, though, that he used the compelling, but mythical, story of an African father and Midwestern mother to get elected. I also believe that whether or not Obama knew the truth about his parents' relationship, he didn't realize then that Obama Sr.'s Kenyan nationality would lead opponents to question his "natural born citizen" status.
In all likelihood, our President is a "natural born citizen" who was elected under false pretenses. Mr. President, in the next election, please run on your record and not a mythological past. History and your fellow citizens deserve this much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)