Search This Blog

Friday, December 26, 2008

Climate-Warming Myth Unravelling--And None Too Soon

Dare attack the Eco-Movement high priests, and you may find yourself out in the cold.

Enter Dr. Will Happer: A Princeton University physicist and a fellow of the American Physical Society and the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, Dr. Happer had been Dir. of Energy Research (1990-1993) during the Clinton Administration until fired by Al Gore for "refusing to go along with Gore's alarmism" about global warming. Dr. Happer asserts that "he had been told in 1993 that science was not going to intrude on policy." He went on to point out that "fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

Continuing to scan a plethora of climate warming-related articles, it has become more than obvious that the man-made climate change myth is driven by ideological and political agendas, greed and power. Nothing more.

Blithely ballyhooed by the media, the man-made climate change mythology has been perpetrated by the effete liberal elites and their willing political cohorts in Washington. The short of it is that the "climate warming movement", a religious movement in its own right, is probably every bit as dangerous to the modern world as is Islamofascism, both being clear and present dangers to our liberty and our very way of life.

Dr. Happer joins a large number of respected scientists who are courageously countering the global warming hoax, and their ranks are growing exponentially. And while climate warming elites in America embark on what could be a sweeping and costly program to counter man-made global warming, Europe, a hotbed of socialist drivel, is already backing off Kyoto and the economically debilitating cap-and-trade program. Will America learn from Europe's mistakes? Right now, I'd say it's a better than even chance it won't. To paraphrase George Will, "The one surefire lesson of history is that we don't ever seem to learn from it."

No doubt, we've all heard that dissenting scientists around the world have been scorned, shunned and their livelihoods often threatened for their apostasy. These folks are owed an immense debt of gratitude for bucking the alarmist tide and for speaking up against global warming true-believers.

In addition to the 31,000 scientists from the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine whose urgent petition to both the White House and Congress in May 2008 stated that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate," in 2007 and 2008 over 650 additional climatologists and other reputable scientists around the world have similarly and openly debunked the myth. Among them, and some of their more revealing comments, these notables as well:

1. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics: "I am a
skeptic. Global warming has become a
new religion
2. Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric Scientist, formerly of
NASA: "Since I am no longer receiving funding, I can
speak frankly
...As a scientist I remain skeptical
of global warming."
3. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Environmental Physical Chemist: "When people come to know what the truth is,
they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

4. Dr. David Gee, Geologist, Uppsala University of
Sweden: "For how many years must the planet cool before
we begin to understand that the planet is not warming."
5. James A. Peden, Atmospheric Physicist: "Many
scientists are now searching for a way to back out quietly
(from promoting climate warming fears), without having
their professional careers ruined."

6. Prof. Delgado Domingos, Environmental Scientist: Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide
is dangerous nonsense. The present alarm on climate change
is an instrument of social control."

7. Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, Vice-Chancellor, Institute of Science
& Technology, Chubu University: "Every scientist
knows that CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one
way or another, but it doesn't pay to say so."

8. Dr. Bruce West, US Army Chief Scientist: "Sun, not man, is
driving climate change."
9. Dr. David Deming, Geophysicist & Assoc. Prof. Arts &
& Sciences, Univ. of Oklahoma: "It is time to file this
theory (global warming) in the ashbin of
history. Alarmists are in denial and running
for cover."
10. Dr. E. Wegman, Nat'l Academy of Sciences, Prof. H. Tenehes,
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Dr. A. Zichini,
reknowned Physicist, Dr. Z. Jaworowski, world expert on
ancient ice cores, Prof. T.V. Segalstad, University of
Oslo's Geological Museum, Dr. Claude Allegre, US Nat'l
Academy of Sciences, have all joined in "rejecting global warming theory as scientifically unsound,
impluasible, fraudulent."

And these tidbits from scientific studies:

1. Europe's cap-and-trade program has been a disaster, yet
an Obama Administration is nonetheless committed to Kyoto
and cap-and-trade. Duh...
2. Since the release of High Priest Gore's "Inconvenient
Truth", the earth's temp has dropped by 1/3 degree Celcius.
3. If the US reduces carbon emissions by 75% by 2050, it
would result in just .013 degree Celcius of "prevented"
warming by 2050.
4. Without India and China participation, even if the U.S,
Europe & Japan were to take every vehicle off the
the road and shut off every power plant, atmospheric
CO2 would still climb from the current 35 parts per
million to 450 ppm by 2070.
5. Had the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade plan been imple-
mented, economists determined it would cost the US
economy $4-8 trillion in GNP and a net loss of 1 million
jobs by 2030.

I thought Doug Giles of nicely summed it up this way: "The specious science of global warming establishes truth not by facts but through non-stop repetition." Now, where have we seen that familiar strategy before? He goes on to say that "everything is being blamed on global warming from summer frost in Africa, snow storms in Las Vegas, freezing penguin chicks, poorly rising bread dough, forest fires in California, hurricanes, impoverished fashion houses and the recent economic downturn suffered by whorehouses in Belgium." Amazing. More to the point, INSANE!

Could anything be plainer: on the matter of global warming, there is NO scientific consensus. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Thus, before our leadership commits our fast-dwindling fortunes to fighting windmills, shouldn't the entire subject be openly, honestly and objectively discussed by a Commission of respected SCIENTISTS representing all points of view on the subject? Only then should we contemplate draconian spending programs to reduce our so-called "carbon footprint." Is that really too much to ask? Unfortunately for us all, in these politically days of politically correct times of "governing by soundbites & repetition" I suspect a majority of us will blindly follow like sheep to their slaughter..........

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

More Reflections on SCOTUS-POTUS

A contributor, one Matt L, to the, a priceless source of commentary on Constitutional issues/questions, replied to my posting in this way: "The most relevant and compelling sources of law (notably the relevant legal treatises penned during the colonial period by de Vattel and von Bar) appear to demonstrate that what our framers intended when they inserted the term "natural born citizen" into Art II, Sec 1 [Presidential Clause], and what the ratifiers of the original Constitution (together with the first ten amendments) understood when presented with the final document, is that the office of POTUS was unavailable to any otherwise qualified individual who cannot also show that he or she was both: 1) born on U.S. soil, and 2) born to a mother who, as of the moment the individual in question is born, was either a) married to a U.S. citizen, or b) an unmarried U.S. citizen."

He goes on to point out that, therefore, McCain, born in a Panamanian hospital, and Obama, born of a British citizen, failed prong 1 and prong 2 of the above test respectively. Thus, the unsettling and very real possibility that this year's GOP and Democratic candidates were BOTH constitutionally unqualified to be President.

As already alluded to in my previous posts, Chester A. Arthur, who assumed the Presidency after the assassination of Pres. James Garfield in 1881, was born of a British citizen and presided over the country until 1885. Mike L again raised the lingering question as to whether or not any laws, treaties and executive orders promulgatged during Arthur's presidency can be legitimately "drawn into question." Still a rather sobering consideration.

And for the sport buffs among you, Mike L relied upon this descriptive analogy to describe the ineligibility problem: " doesn't matter how much glory a stadium full of fans heaps on the slugger who hits the game-winning, walk-off grand slam. If you fail to touch first base on your leisurely trot around the bases, and the pitcher chooses to toss the ball to the first baseman, who then steps on the bag, you will be called out. No questions asked..."

On this subject, Matt L. lamented the silence of "luminaries and high public officials" who certainly know better, but who most likely fear scrutiny and the jeopardy of their lofty positions should they publicly raise the possibility of Obama's being ineligible for the Presidency.

I related to Matt L. that I had studied this issue and am deeply concerned about its ramifications for the country. I also pointed out that "I have also been discussing this issue with some friends who are either unfazed, perplexed, burdened with the belief that all is lost anyway, those who are fearful of the consequences in the streets should the issue be seriously raised, and those who think early dementia is setting in on my part."

I went on to say that while I might admit to possible dementia, "I won't admit that so many bright, stable guys, as Mike L, are nincompoops, blindly partisan hacks or deeply troubled conspiratorial theorists either. It is a burning issue which deserves the full light of day." And I still believe this to the very marrow of my being.

As I commented to Mike L, in the malaise in which our country now finds itself, it clearly appears that the Constitution is no longer sacrosanct. It's a prop for those seeking high office and privilege. "Oaths to uphold the Constitution have become empty the-ends-justify-the-means words. Power alone is their God; that I see it day in and day out on the news channels and C-Span; that my stomach is in knots watching and listening to our political leaders double-speak and obfuscate."

I, for one, have contacted my congressinal "reps" and asked them to openly question the constitutional eligibility of Obama, not yet the President-elect, to assume the Presidency on January 20th. If but one Senator and one Congressperson step up, the issue can be dealt with head-on--and constitutionally--before inauguration on January 20th. But, again, I don't see that level of courage present in those once honorable and venerable halls of Congress.

An even-handed, bi-partisan approach to this issue is needed. And, therein lies the challenge for the power elite in D.C.

In one's headlong pursuit of power these days, it seems now that nothing is sacred. Nothing is off-limits. Unfortunately, that cynicism is rampant on both sides of the proverbial aisle.

So, where do little guys like you and I turn? What recourse do we really have? Those are the truly burning questions for me and others who sincerely care about America's roots from which we have derived our liberties, and without which we could never have become the bulwark of freedom, industry and prosperity in the world--Mankind's greatest political achievement.

Take away the roots, gut, erode or otherwise abandon the sanctity of the Constitution, and we can kiss America good-bye. It's really that simple.

("The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." Samuel Adams)

Saturday, December 20, 2008

SCOTUS-POTUS Legal Summary

Despite my 22 years of immigration counseling experience, trying to accurately and clearly summarize the issue of Obama's eligibility--or ineligibility--for the Presidency has been especially challenging and time-consuming. Though I have managed to compact much within this summary, I apologize in advance for the unavoidable length. Hope it proves to be a useful exercise.

CONTENTION: Obama, born in 1961 of a US Citizen mother and a British Citizen (born in Kenya); however, since Obama's father was not a US Citizen, thus not "attached to the US", Obama, even if born of a US Citizen mother within the jurisdiction of the US, is not, by definition and Constitutional intent, a "natural born citizen" as is specifically required by Artile II, Sec 1 (Presidential Clause) of the US Constitution, and is, therefore, ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

British citizenship was conferred to Obama at birth by act of British law. Thus, he was born of dual citizenship.

Art II, Sec 1 of the Constitution, the so-called Presidential Clause, stipulates that "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 the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Within the context of the Framers' actual meaning (letter of the law) and the Framers' express purpose (intent), being a "natural born citizen" requires that citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law (see Law of Nations by E. Vatel-1758 which profoundly influenced the Framers' intent when fashioning the Constitution) and which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one's father's citizenship. To wit, Vatel stated that "natives", or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens", and that "as society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their right." Again, the accent is on the father's citizenship status at the time of the child's birth.

The intent of the Framers with respect to the meaning of "natural born citizen" (vs "born in the US" or "US Citizen") within the context of the Presidential Clause specifically takes into account the father's allegiance and citizenship at the time of a child's birth. Thus, the father's citizenship and, thus, his "attachment to the US" at the time of the child's birth, carried more weight than merely the geographic location of the child's birth. Why? Still reeling from British rule, the Framers, as represented by the words of John Jay in a July 1787 letter to George Washington, the latter who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wanted to avoid dual citizenship or dual loyalties of any future Commander-in-Chief by declaring expressly "that the Commander-in-Chief...shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen", this to insure future leadership's freedom from foreign influences.

This correspondence directly influenced how Art II, Sec 1 was subsequently written, which holds that "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President." (Notice the distinction.)

The first Nationality Act in 1790 declared that "the children of citizens [plural]of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." (Notice what appeared to be the central importance of the father's status--even if both parents were US Citizens at the time of the child's birth.)

However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 stated that children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the United States but are not legally considered "natural born citizens" of the United States. ( A more exclusionary definition which adds the geograhic requirement as well.)

Also, we should note that the primary author of the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard, declared that the citizenship clause of the Amendment was, again, by virtue of "natural law" and not by "act of law" (statute). This would mean that a child born to a US Citizen father was "natural born".

In 1871, Rep. John Bingham, a Framer of the 14th Amendment, stated that a child is a US Citizen if born of naturalized parents inasmuch as a naturalized father as part of the naturalization oath "absolutely renounces and abjure all allegiance and fidelity" to other sovereignties, thus establishing his firm "attachment to the United States" as well. (So, born of US Citizen parents within the jurisdiction are the overriding factors in determining "natural born citizenship.")

Note too that US Title 8 Sec 1401 provides that US Citizenship alone is not sufficient to qualify one for President or Vice President, the clear inference being that he or she must be natural born.

In 1800, Charles Pinkney, a Framer of the Constitution and, later, the S.C. Governor, said that the Presidential Clause was designed to firmly "insure attachment to the country." (No dual loyalties on the part of either parent.)

Art IV, Sec 2 provided that no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual states citizens of the US; only State Legislatures had authority to grant State citizenship which, in turn, conferred upon them US Citizenship.

Further, in Savage vs Umphries (TX) 118 S.W. 893, 909, the court ruled that "as a man is a citizen of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it is incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter is not a citizen of the US to show that such voter's father was not a citizen thereof during his son's minority."

In 1820, Rep. A. Smith (VA), stated that "when we apply the term citizens to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."

And what does the 14th Amendment have to say about this?

The primary author of the citizenship clause in the 14th, Sen. Jacob Howard, declared that the citizenship clause of the Amendment was, again, by virture of "natural law" and not by "act of law". This would mean that a child born to a US Citizen father is, therefore, "natural born".

In 1866, per the 14th Amendment, the terms "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" was defined as meaning "not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty." In the same year, Sec 1992 of US Revised Statutes declared that "all persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power, exluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the US."

In 1871, Rep. John Bingham, a framer of the 14th, stated that a child is a US Citizen if born of naturalized parents inasmuch as a naturalized father as part of the naturalization oath "absolutely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity" to other sovereignties, thus establishing his firm "attachment to the United States" as well. So, it would seem that born of US Citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the US are the overriding and defining factors in determining "natural born citizenship".

In Sec. 1992, Rep. John Bingham, stated that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents [plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Very definitive for purposes both of the 14th Amendment and the Presidential Clause.)

*See Perkins vs ELG, US 325 (1939) ruling which provides the two criteria expressed by Rep. John Bingham must exist before one can be called a "natural born citizen."

On June 22, 1874, Congress issued a joint resolution that stated the "United States has not recognized a double allegiance."

Of contemporaneous interest is that according to the US State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency), "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute ["natural born citizen" and "by statute" is incongruous) does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes." The incongruity created by the statement's use of "natural born citizen" and "by statute" notwithstanding, it appears that a naturalized citizen (by law/statute) is not eligible to assume the office of the President, but it seems to be generally agreed that children born within the jurisdiction of the US of naturalized parents are considered to be "natural born citizens" since that child's parents are, as part of the naturalization process, required "to renounce and abjure any allegiance or fidelity to any foreign sovereignty" and, thus, are, at the time of the child's birth, "attached to the US." Similary, and more obviously, a child born within US jurisdiction of two US citizen parents is also considered a "natural born citizen".

So, it appears that there is no better way to insure "attachment to the US" then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship from his US Citizen father or, at the very least, from both his parents. The Framers' rationale for this would be that any child born in the US of an alien father, or a father of dual allegiance, can be removed by their father to be raised in another country only to be returned later in life bringing with him/her foreign influences. Thus, for purposes of complying with the Presidential Clause, a person born of dual citizenship/allegiance cannot be said to be a natural born citizen. Again, and within the context of the Presidential Clause, the child inherits natural born citizenship from the father alone because, through the laws of nature, the child inherits the condition of the father.

Within the meaning of the Presidential Clause, one can accurately say that there are essentially two types of citizenship: 1) "natural born citizenship" meaning one who, by operation of nature (descent), was born of an American citizen father, or, as further expanded upon in successive legislation and opinion, was born of two US Citizen parents, and 2) a "US Citizen" meaning one who, through operation of law (statutory) was granted citizenship through naturalization, either automatically at time of birth or voluntarily some time after birth. (See John Bingham opinion above.)

The recent Wrotnowski vs Bysiewica stay request which was denied by SCOTUS on 12/15/08 asserts that Pres. Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen at the time of Chester's birth--and the facts appear to clearly substantiate that assertion--and that, therefore, Chester A. Arthur was ineligible under Art II, Sec 1 to assume the office of President. And since the facts of the Arthur case were very similar to that of Obama's, it was plantiff's hope to force the Court to review Obama's eligibility to be President as well.

So, even if Obama verifies his birth within the jurisdiction of the US, he is a US Citizen by virtue of his mother's American citizenship, but he is not a natural born citizen because he was born of an alien father and is, therefore, not, by definition and intent of the Presidential Clause, a natural born citizen.

And if Pres. Chester A. Arthur was ineligible to be President because his father was a British citizen at the time of Chester's birth, should the Supreme Court rule Chester Arthur's breach of law a defensible precedent for granting Presidential eligibility to Obama since his father too was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth in 1961? On this question, the Framers' method for repairing the breach is per constitutional amendment. Clearly, the Framers did not want a President at birth to be born of dual citizenship. As someone much smarter than I said, "making errors in the past does not mean that we need to repeat them in the future."

From this summary of law, I think it can be most reasonably concluded that since a child derives his attachment to the US from his US Citizen parents, a child born of US Citizen parents within the jurisction of the US, inclusive of those US parents who were naturalized US citizens at the time of the child's birth, is very clearly a "natural born citizen".

Finally, this form Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Judge Wm. Johnson in 1823: "On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probably intent in which it was passed."

And this from Pres. George Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular way wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by ursurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governements are destroyed."

Absent the Electors' having denied Certification of the Election or individual lawmakers demanding verification of Obama's eligibility, it is properly left to SCOTUS or the amendment process to determine the constitutional eligibility of Obama to assume the Office of the President. Allowing this constitutional issue to fester could have unintended and very unsettling consequences for our country in the future. If the Constitution is to be ignored or cavalierly misinterpreted, our Republic is surely doomed.

Until this issue is authoritatively and constitutionally resolved, we have a problem. A real problem!

Wednesday, December 17, 2008


As some of you may know already, on 12/8 and 12/15 respectively, the Donofrio and Wrotnowski stay requests (to stop Electors from casting their ballots on 12/15)were denied by SCOTUS. Though a setback for the Constitution, the setback may be reversible within the next several weeks.

It may be worth mentioning that neither stay request was specifically denied certiorari, i.e. a full Court hearing, by SCOTUS, apparently because judicial review is allowd only after the Electors vote on 12/15/08 AND only after Congressional Certification (approval of election results) on 1/9/09.

If certiorari is eventually granted, which is at this point doubtful, judicial review, if any, may occur only after the Congressional process has run its course.

The 20th Amendment provides guidance as to how to proceed if a President-elect (which, despite Mr. Obama's impressive podium seal, he is not until 1/9/09) is rendered qualified.

As indicated previously, a President-elect's eligibility can be properly challenged during "the time prior to inauguration" (1/20/09)1/20/09--but, of course, in a free society such as ours legal challenges to his qualifications are allowed long after if the issue of his eligibility remains unresolved. And in the works are scores of other suits with that challenge in mind.

Per 12th Amendment and 3 USC 15, the objection of one Senator and one Representative is all that is required to prevent Congressional Certification. So, if safeguarding the Constitution is important to us--and I know that it si--we need to start contacting our Senators and Congressmen NOW--before 1/9/09--and urge them to raise constitutional oobjetions to Obama's eligibilti before Inauguration Day.

If interested in contacting your congressional delegation on this subject, here is a sample letter I recently ran across somewhere on the internet which spells it out perfectly:

"Dear Representative/Senator

Article II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution reads: "No Person except a natural born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of the Adoption of Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President, neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years resdient of the United States."

There are numerous questions as to Mr. Obama's citizenship status which raise suspicions and doubt about his constitutional qualifications to be president. To settle this question, Mr. Obama must produce proof of citizenship.

Documents that must be produced include:

1. certified copy of "vault" (original long form version)birth certificate
2. certified copies of all re-issued and sealed birth certificates in the the names of Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham
3. certified copy of Certificate of Citizenship
4. certfified copy of Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity
5. certified copies of admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard University Law School
6. certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing his name form Barry Soetoro

It is reasonable that these documents should be produced considering that his father is Kenyan, his adoptive father is Indonesian, and his grandmother claims to have been present at this birth in Kenya. If he is a natural born citizen of the United States then producing these documents should not be any problem.

The suspicions regarding his qualifications to assume the Office of the President of the United States will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof of his citizenship to federal authorities and the public. If he will not do so voluntarily, he must be compelled by every means available. You, as a representative of the People, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We the People are demanding that you, as our representative, make every effort, both public and private, to resolve this fundamental Constitutional question before January 20, 2009.


For God's sake, Mr. Obama, show us your Birth Certificate--not a worthless "certification" of live birth! If there's nothing to hide, put this distressing and potentially explosive constitutional issue behind us once and for all! Don't allow a dark cloud of toxic suspcion to cloak the legitimacy of your Presidency and Administration. Do the right thing before it spins out of control.

(NOte: After many hours of digging, I finally managed to pull together a rather comprehensive--though certainly not exhaustive--sequential summary of the law since 1790 as it specifically relates to the "natural born citizen' requirement. Though unavoidably lengthy, I felt that since the legal challenges are far from over, my having something of a legal summary handy might be helpful. If interested in reviewing the summary, on 12/20 it will appear on this blog under the heading "SCOTUS-POTUS Legal Summary". And since there are so many issues out there just screaming for attention, after these two SCOTUS-POTUS posts I will refocus my energies. Besides, I need a break. But, I will also keep my eye on S-P developments as well. Of that you may be certain.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Obama's Birth Certificate Still Mysteriously Off-Limits

Further to my two previous posts regarding this seminal matter, I thought these related items might be of more than passing interest to you as well.

While awaiting a SCOTUS decision--probably on Monday, the date the Electors vote--as to whether or not the full Court will hear the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit questioning Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President, it should be noted that Sec 3 of the 20th Amendment stipulates that the Electoral College is the place and time to challenge a candidate's credentials and that the Electors, for whom we actually voted, have the right and responsibility to do so if, course, there is cause. In a real sense, they have been described as the "gatekeepers" in such matters.

The Amendment identifies "the time prior to inauguration" for challenges to be made to the qualifications of both Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Thus, the Electors have the specific constitutional right to request a candidate's credentials in Court and also before the Electoral College with Congress acting as adjudicators. SOOOO, even if SCOTUS disallows a full hearing of the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit, there is still ample time to pursue legal avenues to compel Obama to verify his constitutional qualifications to be President.

You may recall that Obama and his team of three law firms has steadfastly refused to produce the "vaulted" copy of his original Birth Certificate in Hawaii. Doing so, of course, would clarify the matter of his birth once and for all. Unfortunately, he has deigned to produce only a "Certificate of Live Birth" which, even if it's not a fake, omits the name of the hospital where he was born, the name of the attending physician, witnesses, etc.

To further complicate evidentiary matters of his birth, I found that S.338.17.8 of Hawaii's Revised Statutes, in effect, allows Hawaii's Director of Health to issue "Certificates of Live Birth" to children not even born in Hawaii so long as the legal parents have "declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year preceding the birth or adoption of such child." Proof of residency is left up to the discretion of the Director of Health. Questions, anyone?

By way of review, Article I, Sec 2, the so-called Presidential Clause of the Constitution, requires that a Presidential candidate be a "natural born citizen", that he be 35 years of age, and that he has resided in the US for at least 14 years.

Further, US Title 8 Sec 1401 provides that US citizenship alone is not sufficient to qualify one for President or Vice President. He or she MUST be a natural born citizen without, of course, any question of dual loyalties or citizenship.

On 10/31/08, Hawaii's Director of Health verified that he had "personally seen" OBH's orginal Birth Certificate. So we know it exists. However, in his sworn statement, the Dir. of Health did not at any time verify OBH's place of birth or any other pertinent info regarding the document--only that he had personally seen the document.

Cannot it be reasonably inferred that Obama's refusal to produce the original birth certificate or certified long form of same mean that he was not born in the US? In the absence of verifiable proof to the contrary, then the inferrence is, to me, entirely defensible.

And when his choice of Secretary of Commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, stated to a throng of Hispanic supporters that "Barack Obama is an immigrant," should that not also be cause for justifiable concern? Or was it just follhardy campaign exuberance. Who really knows?

And when OBH's paternal grandmother said she was present during Barack's birth in Kenya, and when OBH's sister, Maya Soetoro, named two different Hawaiian hospitals where Obama may have been born, are not these items cause for concern as well?

And when young Obama was taken to Indonesia by his adoptive Indonesian parent, Leo Soetoro, where he attended a school to which only Indonesian citizens were permitted to enroll and where school records list OBH's citizenship as Indonesian, shouldn't a reasonable person be expected to ask questions? Or was that simply a matter of fraudulent enrollment? Who knows?

Where or where is that elusive Birth Certificate, President-elect Obama? Now, would a good 'ole polished Chicago politican like you be hiding something fro us little 'ole hayseeds? IF NOT, then, as they say in Missouri,"show me!" (Sorry. Couldn't resist that jab. I, like you, don't like being toyed with.)

And to complicate the matter further, as if that's even remotely possible at this juncture--EVEN IF he can prove he was born on US soil, thus a US Citizen, that is but ONE of two eigibility hurdles he must overcome. From a Constitutional standpoint, he may still NOT a "natural born citizen" as required by the Presidential Clause. Since he was born of a US Citizen and an alien father, the latter from which, according to the Constitution's meaning, he derives his "attachment" or "loyalty", and since his faher was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth in 1961, this would render Obama an ineligible "dual citizen" of the US and Great Britain, most certainly a constitutional no-no within the context of Art I, Sec 2.

As I research this subject further, I will share pertinent "notes" with you. Your comments, questions would be greatly appreciated. They make me think and dig more deeply. And in such sobering matters, thinking and digging are exactly what's required. Not just whimsical ideological blathering and parsing.)

Friday, December 12, 2008

Obama's "Natural Born Citizenship" Issue Still Very Much Alive

Further to my previous post regarding Obama's constitutional eligibility--or ineligibility--to be President and the two more prominent suits filed with the Supreme Court which took issue with his eligibility, if the purpose of the news media is to objectively report the facts, thereby educating "we the people", then the reporting we read in the Democrat & Chronicle's December 9th issue was, as we might have anticipated, very disappointing, indeed.

Headlined "Court Rejects Latest Obama Suit", the writer, one David Savage of the Chicago Tribune, noted that the Donofrio-Wells suit had been turned down by the Supreme Court on December 8th.And so it had.

Savage went on to explain that the basis for the Donofrio suit was "a provision in the Constitution that says no person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of the president."

In the next stand-alone paragraph, Savage simplistically and misleadingly asserted that "Any person born in this country is considered under U.S. law to be a natural born citizen." Wow! So who needs the Supreme Court when we have David Savage! There you have it, folks. A done deal. What more is there to say about this subject? Savage is our constitutional savant, the Man!

Arrogance and shoddy journalism at its best. And we wonder why Americans are so uninformed. But, hey, the heretofore off-limits story was at least covered and with fairly bold headlines to boot. That alone borders on the momentous and is justifiable cause for celebration in these halcyon days of political correctness and self-imposed timidity. So, I suppose we should count our blessings as well.

As discussed in my previous post on December 7th, accurately defining "natural born citizen" within the context of one's eligibility to serve as President or Vice President is much more elusive and complex than Savage would have us believe. Clearly, the 'ole boy is a lousy investigative and/or legal journalist. Thus, if finding the truth is our goal, Savage's story most certainly reminds us how very important it is that we supplement any newspaper reading with some careful research of our before drawing any educated conclusions--on ANY subject of ANY value or importance.

By way of update, regarding the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz case which I discussed in Update #5 of my previous post, as of tonight there is no word as to its fate at the Supreme Court. Having been rejected by Justice Ginsberg, it was taken up and referred by Justice Scalia to private Supreme Court conference this morning, December 12th. A ruling on whether or not it will be heard by the full court won't be rendered until Monday, December 15th.

Like the Donofrio suit which was rejected after review by Supreme Court conference on Mondy, December 8th, it should be carefully noted that if these suits were frivolous, they would have both been immediately rejected by the court from the outset, thus denying them the dignity of a Supreme Court conference review by all Justices. So, clearly, folks, the facts of these cases are not without merit.

With as much brevity as possible, and as clearly as possible, I will keep you updated on developments as this issue unfolds. Word has it that there could be as many 100+ suits out there being prepared for filing with the Supreme Court. So, it's not over, folks. Not by a long shot.

(For a little more detail and give-and-take regarding this issue, you might want to check out the commentary following my December 7th post on of same title as my post below.)

Will keep you updated.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Murky Birth Certificate Issue Still Unresolved

This will surely ruffle some feathers. So be it.

Nagging and compelling questions regarding Obama's legal qualifications to become Commander-in-Chief continue to pop up on the internet--and not merely on the blogging fringes, but on what appear to be entirely credible and reputable sites as well. The media, of course, is, in typical fashion, entirely ignoring the story. At the considerable risk of being labelled a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist or poor Conservative loser, I thought the matter warranted at least a brief summary here.

FACT: Seventeen law suits in 12 states are underway to compel Obama to provide an "authentic & verifiable U.S. Birth Certificate" to prove he meets all constitutional eligibility rquirements to become President. So far, the Obama team has succcessfully rebuffed these attempts. Why? That's the really nagging question for me.

Currently spearheaded by the U.S. Justice Foundation (USJF), these suits don't appear to be ill-conceived, arbitrary, mean-spirited, myopically partisan efforts to merely disgrace the President-elect or to unfairly invalidate his election by over 60 million American voters. To me anyway, USJF's suit, among others, appears to be a straightforward, fact-based effort to force Obama to validate that he is a natural-born American citizen, one of 3 criteria mandated by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, and quite mysteriously, a similar effort on the part of 17 petitioners around the country is still being rigorously resisted by the Obama legal team. Why?

To date, individual court actions, e.g. the more well-known Berg vs Obama/DNC suit in Pennsylvania, have failed owing to court rulings that the petitioners "lack standing"--NOT that the facts of the suits themselves are without merit or in dispute. And that's an important distinction to bear in mind as this matter unfolds.

If the courts rule that USJF, a well-established entity which one can readily assume possesses sufficient "standing" and stature to bring suit, also "lacks standing" to bring suit in this matter, then shouldn't we all be concerned that "we the people" likely "lack standing" as well? And if we "lack standing" to bring suit on such a seminal issue, then who does? Surely a sobering question.

Should it be discovered that President-elect Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President well after he has assumed that role, would not all laws, treaties or executive orders he may have had a hand in be constitutionally invalid--in effect, null and void? Not at all a pleasant prospect.

Still at issue, then, is whether Obama is, in fact, and in accordance with the Constitution and prevailing Immigration & Naturalization Service rules and regulations, a natural-born citizen and, if he is, that he has not lost that citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.

As of this writing, it should be further noted that the Certificate of Live Birth posted on the internet by the Obama team earlier this year does not--according to the Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands--authenticate Obama's Hawaiian birth. Shouldn't that raise reasonable doubts as to Obama's eligibility? Of course it should. So, why is the Obama team still refusing to produce Obama's birth certificate? If it exists, produce it. If it doesn't exist, explain why.

If it is true that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President, much less a Senator from Illinois, the ensuing constitutional crisis will be like none other in our history. Not even the drama of Watergate and Nixon's resignation could compare. And the specter of a possible Biden presidency--if, in fact, that would be constitutionally allowed--with Nancy Pelosi next in line doesn't sit well with me at all.

Since USJF's suit and the others will take years to litigate, of special interest is a little known suit inititated on November 3rd by one Leo Donofrio, a retired lawyer, asking the New Jersey Secretary of State to prohibit Obama AND McCain AND the Socialist Worker Party candidate, Roger Calero, from appearing on the NJ Presidential Ballot on the grounds that none of them had met the natural-born citizenship test to run for President. On December 5th, just 10 days before the Electoral College votes, all U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS)Justices will have met privately to discuss Donofrio's case. (Keep your ear to the ground, folks, and let's honestly hope a constitutional crisis can be averted. Worse, of course, would be a cover-up. We can weather a constitutional crisis, but, in my opinion, a cover-up would be an unmitigated disaster for the Republic.)

Still, the lingering question is why won't the Obama team simply produce the Birth Certificate being requested? Why?

(UPDATE #1: Today, none other than the Washington Times reports that a spokesperson for SCOTUS said a decision on whether to hear Donofrio's case will likely be announced next week. A very interesting development. In other words, SCOTUS hasn't refused to consider the case; it has delayed its decision on the matter. Note: for SCOTUS to consider the case, at least 4 Justices must be on board. Will keep you posted. Again, for the good of the country, let's hope all is on the up-and-up.)

(Update #2: As I delve more deeply, the constitutional ramifications become increasingly fascinating. My cursory research suggests that if Obama is rendered ineligible, either the Electors--for whom we actually voted on Nov 4th--will elect a President, or the election of a President will be left to the House of Representatives. Whichever the case, again let's hope that the facts of the case will determine the electoral outcome, and not political machinations, intrigue and ideology. Let's hope that the Justices, both liberal and conservative, will uphold our Constitution to the letter.)

(Update #3: A new twist: while Donofrio's suit concedes OBH was born in Hawaii, he contends that since his Kenyan father was a British citizen at the time of OBH's birth in 1961 that OBH is a British citizen and not a "natural born U.S. citizen". Note: Kenya was ruled by Britain as British East Africa until its independence in 1963. Donofrio advises other petitioners that the Lolo Soetoro issue is but a distraction. Very interesting.)

(UPDATE #4: without comment, SCOTUS today (12/8) turned down Donofrio's appeal. Thus, a legally binding definition of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" provision as may have been intended by the Framers vs "born in the USA" remains in doubt and is conveniently left for another day, another suit and another Supreme Court. Good luck and Godspeed, President-elect Obama.)

(Update #5: Wow! This is becoming like that proverbial suspense novel one simply can't put down. Anyway this: fast on the heels of Donofrio's suit is the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit, an end-run to compel SCOTUS to render Obama ineligible for the Presidency. In short, this suit questions the validity of and urges SCOTUS to decide upon the merits of the suit's claim that Pres. Chester A. Arthur was ineligibile to be President on the grounds that his father was, under prevailing US law, a British citizen. Carbon copy of the Donofrio vs Wells claim. If SCOTUS decides against Arthur, then it must decide against Obama. Justice Scalia has reviewed this new suit and is distributing it to whole conference on December 12th, 3 days before the Electors meet. The plot thickens.)