Breitbart.com: 1991 booklet by Obama’s literary agent listed his birthplace as Kenya; Update: Fact-checking error, says agent

posted at 4:19 pm on May 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

We got a bunch of excited e-mails when this story broke an hour or so ago, my favorite of which was this (in its entirety):

why are you blacking out BRIETBART SCOOP of OBAMA KENYA PAMPHLET ???????

The terrible truth: Ed already had a few posts queued up and my shift hadn’t started yet so not until now could the “blackout” be lifted. I suspect that e-mail is typical, though, of the enthusiasm with which Birthers will greet this news, even though Joel Pollak’s perfectly clear in his piece that he accepts that O was born in Honolulu. Key bit:

[Obama's then-agent Jay] Acton, who spoke to Breitbart News by telephone, confirmed precise details of the booklet and said that it cost the agency tens of thousands of dollars to produce.

He indicated that while “almost nobody” wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom “the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,” were “probably” approached to approve the text as presented

The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama’s background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.

The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama–or the people representing and supporting him–manipulate his public persona.

The point, as Pollak explains, isn’t that the Kenya detail should be taken at face value but rather that it’s another case of Obama, who once famously described himself as a “blank slate” for voters, re-inventing his identity for professional gain. An author born in colonial Kenya sounds more worldly at first blush than one born in Honolulu, just as a law professor who’s 1/32 Cherokee sounds more in tune with the minority experience in America than a white woman from Oklahoma. Beyond that, though, this is a story about the media: I’d bet cash money that some reporter somewhere stumbled upon this booklet in years past and politely suppressed the info rather than do the journalist’s job of asking questions and finding out why the mistake in the booklet was made. The alternative, that the media was so uninterested in O’s background that they never checked his professional listings, is grimly possible, but I’m skeptical. I think this is a case where someone probably heard about the booklet and ignored it in order to play gatekeeper so that the Birthers couldn’t exploit the information. That’s what the press has come to when the subject is Obama’s background. (See also the point-and-sputter reaction online this morning at the unfathomable possibility of a Rev. Wright attack ad.) If you doubt that I’m right, sit back and watch the screeching to which Pollak and the Breitbart crew will now be subjected even though no one’s questioned their findings and they’ve dismissed repeatedly the beliefs of the Birthers who’ll make hay of this. The only “responsible” approach to this info, we’ll be told, is to suppress it.

As icing on the cake, here’s AB himself dismissing the Birthers on Joy Behar’s show last year. Click the image to watch and skip to 4:30. Exit question: Did Obama’s booklet bio really list him as “a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation”? I’d like to hear more about that career.

Update (Ed): Also, I have to stop writing at a certain point to prepare for my show. I did see this, but figured AP would have more time and write a more thorough post than I could at that point — and I was right. I did discuss the story on my show, with Kerry Picket of the Washington Times.

Update (Allahpundit): Miriam Goderich, who helped represent Obama at the same literary agency, issued this statement to Political Wire:

“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16

For anybody that missed it, here’s a link to the podcast of Bill Cunningham’s interview with Jerome Corsi.

TarheelBen on May 21, 2012 at 1:48 AM

I think my post above was number 1500.

TarheelBen on May 21, 2012 at 2:21 AM

It’s a complete lie that it was a “clerical error.” But of course we knew that. But now we have PROOF of the lie.

SUNDAY, MAY 20, 2012
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/05/barack-obamas-biographical-brief-was.html


Barack Obama’s biographical brief edited repeatedly over 17 years, but Kenyan birthplace changed just weeks after his presidential run announced

mountainaires on May 21, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Allahpundit’s last update ends with Miriam Goderich’s statement.

Does AP accept that as the end of the story?

Where did Miriam Goderich get the erroneous statement that Obama was “born in Kenya”?

She claims, “This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me”, but she doesn’t explain where she got that “fact” that she failed to check.

She claims, “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.”

If you remember Bill Clinton, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”, then you must carefully parse Goderich’s statement.

If Obama had submitted a bio that matched what was published, i.e.,

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

…then it would be technically true that…

There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.

That “and not Hawaii” gives her an out, because Obama did not submit a bio saying

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and not Hawaii and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

So, in a Clintonian sense, what Miriam Goderich said in her statement is not a lie.

Obama could have submitted “born in Kenya” in 1991 and “born in Kenya” in each of multiple revisions up until 2007 when he submitted “born in Hawaii”. He never once submitted, “born in Kenya and not Hawaii“.

Dig deeper, Ed and AP, dig deeper.

AP, specifically, did you trust Dan Rather’s producer, Mary Mapes?

Why do you trust Barack Obama’s publicist, Miriam Goderich?

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM

The whitewash continues. Look at the deceptive headline now on Drudge:

Hawaii responds to AZ’s request for proof Obama is U.S. born…

Now, if you see that and don’t read the story, it looks like Arizona is satisfied and everything’s hunky-dory, no?

Read the story, and you see that Hawaii has rejected Arizona’s request, and is telling Arizona to prove why they need confirmation of 0bama’s birth certificate.

The headline should read, “Hawaii rejects AZ’s request for proof Obama is U.S. born.”

See what Drudge has done?

The cover-up continues, apace.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

If I were the AZ Secretary of State, I would explain to the HI Attorney General that:

1) All employees are legally required to prove their employment eligibility using a Form I-9 and supplying hard copy documentation from a specified list of acceptable documentation.

All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

2) A green card is acceptable for most jobs in the U.S., but the Constituion explicitly states that Representatives and Senators must be citizens, and the President and Vice-President must be natural born citizens.

3) The POTUS and VPOTUS must be natural born citizens.

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.

4) Since the POTUS and VPOTUS must be natural born citizens, the specified list of acceptable documentation gets reduced down to documents that could be used to ascertain whether or not the POTUS and VPOTUS are natural born citizens. In other words, the specified list of acceptable documents that establish employment authorization gets reduced down to just:

Original or certified copy of birth certificate issued by a State, county, municipal authority, or territory of the United States bearing an official seal

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

My question still remains…. if the candidates are for federal office but the ballot is for state delegates, is one state allowed to refuse another state verification of vital records?

Where exactly does Arizona’s request would fall in Hawaii’s rubric. After all, 0bama is not applying for employment in Arizona.

Hawaii rules on releasing birth-certificate info:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;

(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

Under which point should Arizona make its request?

It seems it would be #2 or #3 to me.

For #2, Bennett can say he’s updating a list of eligible candidates for the Arizona ballot.

For #3, Bennett can say that 0bama’s applying for the service of being legally placed on the ballot.

What is the definition of a “vital event?” I would take this to mean 0bama’s birth.

So, Bennett should be busy making an official application under #s 2 & 3. They would seem to qualify.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 12:08 PM

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 12:08 PM

A “vital event” is an event that creates a “vital record”… births and deaths certainly qualify, and I think marriages and divorces might as well.

So, the initial (unmodified by adoption) birth certificate would be the vital record for the vital event of Obama’s birth.

I agree with you regarding #2 or #3, but taking a step back, I think the “burden of proof” is not on Bennett but rather on Obama. It is the employee’s responsibility to prove their employment eligibility to the employer. The President is a government employee with a salary paid by his employer, We the People.

There are no exceptions made in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for government employees. All means all. Must means must.

All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

And the only document that prove Employment Eligibility for the office of President is an

Original or certified copy of birth certificate issued by a State, county, municipal authority, or territory of the United States bearing an official seal

The burden of proof is on Obama. Bennett should tell all candidates for President or Vice President that if they do not submit a hard copy birth certificate, and explain why they think they qualify as a “natural born citizen”, then they will NOT be placed on the ballot!

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 12:29 PM

It is the employee’s responsibility to prove their employment eligibility to the employer. The President is a government employee with a salary paid by his employer, We the People.

But 0bama’s not applying to become an Arizona employee. Sure, the People’s employee, by extension, but that’s not going to fly – it’s too far removed.

I refer back to #2 and #3. For #2, 0bama is applying to be put on an Arizona government list of eligible candidates for Arizona delegates.

For #3, 0bama is applying for the state service of being vetted and placed on the ballot.

On those two things, Arizona is on solid ground. Bennett should apply to Hawaii on these grounds, and Hawaii should have no defensible reason not to follow its own legal guidelines.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Do you realize that no one in government respects anything Arizona laws? When they try to pass their own laws, or even try to enforce their own state border, they get ignored or sued.

Arizona is swiftly becoming the legal pariah of the nation, without the right to self-governance.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM

It is implausible that Obama didn’t know what his own bio said from 1991 to 2007.

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Do you realize that no one in government respects anything Arizona laws? When they try to pass their own laws, or even try to enforce their own state border, they get ignored or sued.

Arizona is swiftly becoming the legal pariah of the nation, without the right to self-governance.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I suspect it won’t be much different for Texas.

But the AZ Secretary of State probably has the final say over who is, and is not, on the ballot there. I don’t think the Feds could force him to put Obama on the ballot. Bennett should just tell Obama, “put up or shut up”.

If Obama then produces a birth certificate, Bennet can ask for a letter of verification for that birth certificate.

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 1:09 PM

But the AZ Secretary of State probably has the final say over who is, and is not, on the ballot there. I don’t think the Feds could force him to put Obama on the ballot. Bennett should just tell Obama, “put up or shut up”.

If Obama then produces a birth certificate, Bennet can ask for a letter of verification for that birth certificate.

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I have no confidence that Jan Brewer won’t lean on him to admit 0bama, with or without the confirmation.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Sure, Brewer has had her run-ins with 0bama, but she also has killed any bill that has tried to force candidates to show birth certificates.

Maybe the confrontation at the airport has changed her mind? We’ll see.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

We are supposedly a Constitutional Republic, ruled by the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

We are not supposed to be ruled by the Rule of Men.

If the Rule of Law is abandoned in favor of what is politically correct, then we are no longer a Constitutional Republic.

This is a showdown.

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I can see your trying to see an innocent explanation. But when you look at the number of lies he has told just in his job as president, it’s not too likely, you know.

cane_loader on May 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM

No, the innocent explanation wasn’t quite where I was aiming, although it is a valid point.

The meaning I was trying to convey is that even if the “born in Kenya” statement in the pamphlet was a lie written by Mr Obama, it is easily explained away with another lie; it is easily deniable.

Right now there seems to be a lot of smoke, and the odour of combustion is fresh and strong … so much so that it is prudent to look for a fire. But this pamphlet is still just smoke and odour, it isn’t a flickering flame and it isn’t the hand of an arsonist.

Nobody with the necessary power is going to impeach a sitting president just because there is a bad smell around him — especially when the bad smell was just as strong before he was elected.

So, whether anybody likes it or not, some further evidence will be needed before there will be a case that is strong enough to justify the courts or congress or senate demanding the president give an explanation and in the absence of such evidence, the rest of us will just have to put a peg on our noses and invest in some fragrant essential oils to block the stink.

YiZhangZhe on May 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

So if all the people in 0bama’s life – even his wife – are on record as saying he was born in Kenya, that has nothing to do with 0bama?

cane_loader on May 20, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I watched the video link somebody posted, in which Mrs Obama refers to Kenya as Barack’s ‘home country’. It was, I thought, odd but I have known enough people who were born to immigrants to know that some of them do say things like that. Legally they belong to one nation, but in some part of their own minds their ‘home’ is some other place. Why they think like that I cannot say, I suspect a lot of it is just pretentiousness, and part of it is an attempt to create or find an identity, but some of them do, I presume, feel the family ties strongly enough to think of the ‘other’ place as ‘home’.

The idea that Obama would claim Kenya as ‘home’ would fit with the rest of his projected character, as a narcissist and as one of the pretentious people who thinks of themselves as a “citizen of the world”, and who writes an autobiography without actually having accomplished anything particularly special. It would also fit with somebody who, through his disjointed upbringing, lacked a clear identity and was keen to create one for himself.

My suppositions, if true, would suggest he is unfit for such a high office, but that is just tough — he long before this pamphlet appeared he was already unfit for high office for a good many other reasons but non of them stopped him from being elected.

It is implausible that Obama didn’t know what his own bio said from 1991 to 2007.

ITguy on May 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Very implausible indeed, I agree. However he can easily claim (honestly or dishonestly) to have never seen the biography and you are most unlikely to be able to prove otherwise, and unless you can prove him to have lied, nobody with the power to do so is going to demand he explain himself.

YiZhangZhe on May 21, 2012 at 2:06 PM

So, whether anybody likes it or not, some further evidence will be needed before there will be a case that is strong enough to justify the courts or congress or senate demanding the president give an explanation and in the absence of such evidence, the rest of us will just have to put a peg on our noses and invest in some fragrant essential oils to block the stink.

YiZhangZhe on May 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Oh, I see. I sorta thought that’s what you were getting at.

I’m not talking impeachment; I’m talking about shedding more light on whether 0bama lied for years about being born in Kenya. That would have a direct impact on his viability for 2012, which is why I think this story is so important.

For now, I’m concentrating on keeping it simple – such as, the current standoff between Hawaii and Arizona. The outcome of that will give direction to the next steps.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM

By the way, I have to laugh.. as I just noted on the new Green-Room thread about 0bama’s Cherokee roots…. I discovered recently that I am related, distantly, to 0bama, and the same Cherokee story is in our family, likely through our common relative. I don’t think 0bama’s making that up.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Honestly, he probably was born in Hawaii, but the born in Kenya bio appears to be consistent with his tendancy to change facts and stories to suit his purposes. My guess is one of the many reasons his school records are sealed is that he may have listed himself as Kenyan to get additional favoritism, scholarships, aid, etc.
Some of those actions may have been fraudulent. After all, he used cocaine, which is a felony. Why would he be troubled by a little financial aid fraud. I would assume the statute of limitations would have long passed, but i think the voters have a right to know these things.

I think we need a clamor in the media and blogosphere to at least release this portion of his school records even if we can’t get test scores or grades.

talkingpoints on May 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Nobody with the necessary power is going to impeach a sitting president

YiZhangZhe on May 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

.
Impeachment is for legitimate presidents. I think the Constitution provides other remedies for the removal of an ineligible usurper whose own autobiography (page 26 of Dreams from My Father) admitted he was a British subject at birth)..
According to U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Claus 6:

“In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, UNTIL THE DISABILITY BE REMOVED, OR A PRESIDENT SHALL BE ELECTED.”

If “inability” & “disabilty” could be interpreted to mean Obama’s ineligibilty &/or fraud and the Democratic Congress’ dereliction of their ultimate duty to vet their own candidate, then Biden’s out & Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, could be sworn in till after new election & inauguration.

Anyone else see this as a possibility?

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If “inability” & “disabilty” could be interpreted to mean Obama’s ineligibilty &/or fraud and the Democratic Congress’ dereliction of their ultimate duty to vet their own candidate, then Biden’s out & Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, could be sworn in till after new election & inauguration.

Anyone else see this as a possibility?

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Yes! But I still haven’t had the time to sit down and really crunch it. A lot going on the last day or so!

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I would actually say the House might pick John McCain, as the runner-up. I strongly disagree with you that he is not a natural-born citizen.

He would seem a less-partisan choice than Boehner.

Of course, we’re talking hypotheticals.

Truly, if the 25th were to be invoked on 0bama due to an impasse over his eligibility, until it were proven that he were ineligible, Joe Biden would be given the benefit of the doubt, even though he was on the saem ticket.

But – then again – any situation that was so serious to actually invoke the 25th would then encumber Biden, as well.

Some would say that you would follow the line of succession, as in the Constitution. But if you read the 25th, it leaves it up to Congress. I think that partisanship might 86 Boehner.

Truly the most likely fallback would be McCain, seeing as he got second-most votes for president.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM

For now, I don’t think it’s productive t othink too far ahead. It gives anti-”birthers” ammunition to call people crazy. plus, this thing has so many angles, that it’s better to stay very simple, concrete, and within the realm of realistic possibility.

For now, I want to see Hawaii respect Arizona’s electoral process, and not obfusticate any longer.

Secondly, 0bama’s college records are wide open for legitimate newsworthy investigation, after the brochure came out from Brietbart.

Those two things are next in line.

And they are not “birtherism,” either.

They are news about the prospective Democrat candidate for president in 2012.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Cane_loader, i never mentioned invoking the 25th Amendment. I referenced Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 which I think may provide another remedy to remove a usurper or illegitimate “president”. Standby for more compelling info to come…

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Cane_loader, i never mentioned invoking the 25th Amendment. I referenced Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 which I think may provide another remedy to remove a usurper or illegitimate “president”. Standby for more compelling info to come…

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM

My apologies. I’m too distracted right now to fully address your point. I shouldn’t be posting here today… too much going on. Gotta get back to work.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 7:08 PM

cane_loader, ITguy, TarheelBen, dogsoldier, JustSayin & other openminded HA posters,

1. OBAMA’S OWN LAWYER’S ADMISSION
2. OBAMA’S OWN SENATE RESOLUTION
3. OBAMA’S OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY 

BOYS & GIRLS, THESE GIVE US ALL WE NEED TO KNOW TO PERP WALK OSQUATTER OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, NO?

1. COURT VIDEO- Obama’s own lawyer agrees with judge that it is common knowledge that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=DK5IEH7EqNI 
At approx the 1:03 mark:
Video N.J Judge “…since it is common knowledge that Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen…” At which point Obama’s side’s attorney Hill can be seen vigorously nodding her head in agreement. His lawyers then tried to have the legally recorded video deleted from the internet. 

2. Obama’s own 2008 Senate Resolution 511 (SR511) said  ”therefore be it resolved… John McCain is a natural born citizen since he was born on US military base to 2 US Citizen parents…”
(PLURAL: CITIZEN PARENTS) That’s two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen by Obama’s own resolution…

3. In Obama’s own words (see p. 26 of his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” quoted on his campaign site “Fight the Smears”) his father, BH 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.”

So, his child, Obama Jr was governed by & therefore owed allegiance to the British government. In other words, Jr was subject to the jurisdiction of the British government AT BIRTH- NOT that of the US govt. His status as a British “subject”/citizen was conveyed by his father courtesy of the laws in effect in 1961, when Jr. was born. 

Obama’s self-admitted dual citizenship at birth and the required (by Article 2 Sec 1 Claus 5) status of natural born citizenship at birth are mutually exclusive. Obama, the self-labeled “Constitutional professor” is ineligible, he knows it. So does every thinking American who has not chosen to look the other way while our country is ruined.

—-
Enough?

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Obama’s self-admitted dual citizenship at birth and the required (by Article 2 Sec 1 Claus 5) status of natural born citizenship at birth are mutually exclusive. Obama, the self-labeled “Constitutional professor” is ineligible, he knows it. So does every thinking American who has not chosen to look the other way while our country is ruined.

—-
Enough?

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 10:02 PM

That has not been sufficiently adjudicated by the Supreme Court. I am not ready to say that 0bama is not a natural-born citizen. The SCOTUS owes the country a definition, because we have plenty of illegal aliens having kids. There are opinions everywhere, but not from the highest court in the land. This is a flaw in the Constitution… that it was not defined.

For now, we can’t hammer your point any further, because it has been debated to death, with no resolution.

I want to see Hawaii satisfy Arizona, and then truth-seeking reporters sort out this business of 0bama allowing the ongoing statements by many, many people that he was born in Kenya.

That is the fact-based way forward.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM

That has not been sufficiently adjudicated by the Supreme Court. I am not ready to say that 0bama is not a natural-born citizen. The SCOTUS owes the country a definition, because we have plenty of illegal aliens having kids. There are opinions everywhere, but not from the highest court in the land. This is a flaw in the Constitution… that it was not defined.

cane_loader on May 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM

cane_loader,
Supreme Court ruling in Minor v Happersett DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

U.S. Supreme Court
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

“…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...”

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 11:21 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 11:21 PM

I think that we see this the same way.

I think this is a fair interpretation of what the Court said in Minor:

“…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 [natural-born citizens] became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. … 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…”

The Court in Minor had to decide:
1) Was Minor a citizen?
2) Are all citizens guaranteed a right to vote?

The answer to the first issue was yes, she was a citizen because she was a natural born citizen. The court expressed doubts about who else besides natural born citizens could be considered citizens, but for the purpose of the case before them, it was not necessary to resolve those doubts. It became necessary for the Court to resolve those doubts in the later case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born on U.S. soil to two non-citizen parents who were permanently domiciled. The Court construed the 14th and decided that since Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S. and his parents were permanently domiciled here, Wong Kim Ark was “sujbect to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and was a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

The Court never declared Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen”, but rather just a citizen.

All natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.

And note well that the Court in Minor EXPLICITLY avoided construing the 14th Amendment. Why? Becuase they didn’t have to, because Minor was a natural born citizen! If you are a natural born citizen, you don’t need the 14th Amendment to make you a citizen!

And here’s where things get really interesting… Obama’s campaign initially described him as a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but then they changed that page and scrubbed the reference to the 14th Amendment!

The Obama campaign initially claimed:

The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment

“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.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:

The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110318175449/http://www.fightthesmears.com//articles/5/birthcertificate.html

However, note that that page also says the following:

“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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Obama’s own campaign web site admitted that his “citizenship status” was “governed by” The British Nationality Act of 1948, because his was father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II was also born a British subject… subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.
—————-

Then they updated that page again…

http://web.archive.org/web/20110504021510/http://my.democrats.org/page/content/president-obama-birth-certificate

In 2008, President Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth—the legal birth certificate provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state.

But conspiracy theorists have continued to question the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in order to manipulate voters into thinking that the President isn’t an American citizen.

It’s time to put an end to this fake controversy—and refocus on debating how we grow our economy, create jobs, get our fiscal house in order, and educate our children for the challenges of the 21st century.

To move on from this distraction, President Obama directed his attorneys to request a waiver from the State of Hawaii to release the long-form version of his birth certificate. That waiver was granted.

ITguy on May 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM

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…”

NightmareOnKStreet on May 21, 2012 at 11:21 PM

I’m sorry, I can’t accept your interpretation of Minor. It is too broad. What the above quote is saying is that there have been doubts about those who did not have two American parents. Yes, it does say that those born of parents born here are definitely natural-born.

What it does NOT say, and where you are reaching too far to make Minor say something it doesn’t say, is that those without two native parents, but born in America, are not natural-born or native born. It says that there are doubts. I repeat – this has not been decided sufficiently by the SCOTUS, and Minor is saying just that.

cane_loader on May 22, 2012 at 9:07 AM

cane_loader on May 22, 2012 at 9:07 AM

“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…”

Don’t put words in there that are not there… i.e., don’t insert the words “natural born” when they are not there… it does not read:

“Some authorities go further and include as natural born 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…”

The Court in minor expressed doubt that those individuals should even be considered citizens. The Court later resolved those doubts in Wong Kim Ark. But the Court NEVER called Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen”.

ITguy on May 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM

To both cane_loader & ITguy, consider this regarding both your well written points: 
U.S. Supreme Court MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 

Chief Justice Marshall’s “form without substance” quote: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

This kills the argument that being “a 14th Amendment citizen” has the same effect on Presidential eligibility as being a “natural born citizen”. If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citzen” then the clause would have no effect. As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect.  Such a construction is inadmissible.

For that matter, Article 2 Sec 1 Clause 5′s use of the term “natural born Citizen” (in reference ONLY to the eligibility requirements for President/Vice President) HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE (PLAIN) “Citizen” ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT for Congress as stated in Article 1 Section 1 Clause 2:
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Therefore, if POTUS requires a natural born Citizen, it has to mean a higher standard than the simple Citizen required for the legislature because that would render the natural born clause WITHOUT EFFECT which goes against the landmark SCOTUS ruling quoted above.

The whole discussion may be too much for some to grasp, but since I started posting here about 6 years ago, I’ve found most here at HA are an intelligent bunch.

Thoughts?

NightmareOnKStreet on May 22, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Breitbart.com: 1991 booklet by Obama’s literary agent listed his birthplace as Kenya; Update: Fact-checking error, says agent
POSTED AT 4:19 PM ON MAY 17, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

Curiously, Allah & Ed have had several days to update their reporting that it was merely an error & that none of the publishers’s/ literary agent’s bio of Obama came from Obama.

Breitbart reported the next day that the agency REQUIRES its authors to provide THEIR OWN bio info among other things:

Submission guidelines at the Dystel & Goderich website (original emphasis): “[Y]ou should describe in two or three sentences—no more—what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it….Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author.”

But HA “management” has has plenty of time to post about Superman possibly being gay & “Anchorman 2″ movie trailer, etc. Breitbart’s original story has almost 5,000 comments with subsequent stories racking up even more than that in just the last 4 days. 

Your blatant information blackout (refusal to correct or update your story) is a diservice to the memory of Andrew Breitbart that, in the end will cost you big time in credibility, not to mention readership.

NightmareOnKStreet on May 22, 2012 at 9:59 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on May 22, 2012 at 12:32 PM
NightmareOnKStreet on May 22, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Good comments. I agree with you.

ITguy on May 22, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Unfortunately, I’ve known that HA isn’t really a conservative web site for a long time now – RINO at best.

They have proved it with their ‘coverage’ of PROOF regarding the Fraud in Chief.

I feel a bit like I did when I left LGF – betrayed.

I have appreciated the intelligent commentary here. If I visit again, it will be because of you – not our hosts.

I guess they like 51 comments on a post as opposed to 1500.

Obama will be exposed, with or without Hot Air.

Onward, to find a new ‘home’.

Opinionator on May 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM

Opinionator on May 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM

Let us know where you land/what you find, I’d be interested.

Who is John Galt on May 23, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Who is John Galt on May 23, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Will do. I suspect it will be some gulch in CO when all is said and done, you know?

Meanwhile, because AP has broadcast the ‘good news’ about AZ’s Secretary of State and Hawaiian officials, I guess it’s all good, eh?

///

Opinionator on May 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM

I guess it’s all good, eh?

///

Opinionator on May 24, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Meh. Send me encrypted GPS coords….

Who is John Galt on May 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16