Skip to comments.Brennan must answer for passport breach
Posted on 01/09/2013 12:25:52 PM PST by Perseverando
Exclusive: Jack Cashill ties in Obama's apparent 1981 trip to Pakistan
On Monday, President Barack Obama nominated John Brennan, his chief counterterrorism adviser, to head up the CIA. Brennan, 57, has served as assistant to the president for counterterrorism and homeland security since 2009.
Before voting to confirm, Republicans in the Senate may want to question Brennan about the role he played in Obamas 2008 campaign, specifically his potential involvement in the multiple breaches of the presidential candidates passport records in March of 2008.
The Washington Post headlined the story on March 22, 2008, Rice Apologizes For Breach of Passport Data; Employees Looked at Files On Obama, Clinton, McCain.
The Rice in question was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The offended party in the Post story was Barack Obama. He told reporters that he expected a full and thorough investigation, one that should be done in conjunction with those congressional committees that have oversight function so its not simply an internal matter.
It was not until the 13th paragraph of the Post story that the reader learned that of one of the three contract employees caught in the act worked for the Analysis Corporation, the CEO of which was Brennan.
The Post did report that Brennan donated $2,300 to the Obama campaign but suggested no deeper tie. This information was offset by the revelation that the other two culpable contract employees worked for Stanley Inc., whose CEO, Philip Nolan, contributed $1,000 to the Clinton campaign.
Stanley, however, had been handling passport work for 15 years and had just been awarded a five-year, $570 million contract. The company had no reason to play favorites in the 2008 campaign. It promptly fired the two employees, neither of whom was likely working at the directive of Nolan or of the Clinton campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It was a break in to sanitize Obama’s background, and his travels to Pakistan, which were not disclosed in his book. That and covering up that he held a foreign passport until college age.
The Hillary and McCain files were bloken into just for cover.
And now this guy heads our intelligence service. Our government is dishonest and criminal. They lie to us constantly, and about almost everything.
I remember it well.
The media was very interested in finding out whether McCain or Clinton had something to do with it but when Obama named Brennan it was no big deal.
“It was a break in to sanitize Obamas background, and his travels to Pakistan, which were not disclosed in his book.”
In 1981 the Illegal was a reltive nobody. To get U.S. passport then he’d have had to submit a copy of his real birth certificate, probably one of the unique to Hawaii “do it yourself” certificates that was prepared by his mother or grandmother, one that stated he was born outside of a regular hospital. Such a BC would have been fine for the State Department, being an official BC from Hawaii, but would have been a disaster to disclose because of all the issues it would have raised aboiut him being a natural born citizen. Hence, Brennan would have had a good reason to get into his records and alter them.
Quid Pro Quo.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were 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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
I don’t know that one needs a birth certificate to get a passport.
DS-10 Birth Affidavit
“You may also submit an Affidavit of Birth, form DS-10, from an older blood relative”
How to Apply for a Passport Without a Birth Certificate