Skip to comments.Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'
Posted on 05/17/2012 10:58:09 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
One of the most monstrous cases of Narcissism ever played out on the world stage.
Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship
Gabriel J. Chin University of California, Davis - School of Law
It is far better written than the Tribe/Olson opinion.
The media can play too many Republicans into doing what they want with ease. They do they same thing with Presidential candidates who they persuade many of there supporters as being unelectable. The fact that Obama is electable shows we are done as a nation.
What we don’t know is what country he may have actually been a citizen of. His Indonesian father adopted him so that would be Indonesia????? You are not defending your family imo, you are standing up for Barack. Well, howdy do to you!
You'll find the plain-meaning as it was undestood by the Founders and Framers as of 1791.
I saw this. It is SUCH bullsh*it.
My wife's first job was to do publicity for McGraw Hill. I know how this works. Where would a publicist ever come to think he was born in Kenya? And even if some publicist DID do this, does anyone really think that Obama wasn't given a review copy of whatever release and/or promotional material that might be used on his behalf?
Every rational person here already knew all this.
Ha Ha (Re: Editor Goodrich response in NY magazine)
So, they let the original run for 10 years or so with a “fact checking error” in it and then discovered there was an error and only changed “raised in chicago” but left the born in Kenya.
Breitbart is great. throw out 1/2 a bomb and save the other half for later, after the response.
OK, I had promised myself not to go through this again, since pointing out what Minor v. Happersett actually says has been roundly ignored by those who are dead set in their opinion that the U.S. Congress does not have the power to legislate regarding birthright citizenship of the U.S., but I’ll try once again.
The case involved a woman who was born in the U.S. to citizen parents. The Court was saying that there is no doubt that the term “natural-born citizen” would extend to such a person. However, the Court did not say that the term *only* extended to such persons. In fact, the Court wrote, right after rxsid ended his quotation: “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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
So the Court was not limiting “natural-born citizen” to those that were citizens under both jus soli and jus sanguinis, it was saying that such persons, which included the plaintiff, were undoubtedly natural-born citizens. The silly theory that Minor v. Happesersett limits natural-born status to U.S. born children of two U.S. citizens is tantamount to claiming that when a court has to rule on whether someone used “hard drugs” pursuant to a code of conduct, and such court says “we don’t need to decide whether cocaine is a hard drug, because this guy was using heroin, which clearly is a hard drug,” that “hard drugs” means ONLY heroin.
That proponents of what I believe is an overly restrictive view of natural-born citizenship are misreading the Minor v. Happeersett Court is further evidenced by the fact that the Court goes on to cite approvingly of Congress passing legislation as early as 1790 making foreign-born children of citizens “natural-born citizens.” The Court clearly did not believe that the term “natural-born citizen” meant only “what Blackstone said was a natural-born British subject”; the Court used the term “natural-born citizen of the U.S.” in contradistinction to the term “naturalized citizen,” as it said earlier in the Chief Justice’s opinion of the Court:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides 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 President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
The Minor v. Happersett Court speaks of two types of U.S. citizens: those who are citizens by virtue of birth (which the Court equated with “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution when discussing presidential qualifications) and those who become citizens by naturalization. That’s actually pretty good support for my position (and that of most constitutional scholars), which is that persons who are U.S. citizens at birth under laws in effect at the time of their birth (which would exclude those given citizenship retroactively to their birth) are natural-born citizens, in contradistinction to naturalized citizens. And at the very least, Minor v. Happersett does not refute my position.
LMAO! So she just pulled that factoid out of her ass all on her own? She expects people to believe that since Obama didn't give her any biographical info on himself, she put down Kenya as his place of birth just for kicks or something? Then how did she know he had been president of the Harvard Law Review, etc., if he provided no biographical info?
Give me your definition of "natural born citizen" as defined in the Constitution in terms of eligibility for the Presidency.
That's a non-sequitur. First, the Constitution does not define the term natural born citizen. Second, being born a citizen does not, in and of itself, make one eligible for the presidency. Below is one example of natural born citizens (i.e. not naturalized) whose eligibility for the presidency is still unresolved today.
We've been over this a thousand times on FR. It's a waste of time to argue the definition of NBC and eligibility for the presidency.
U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs manual(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
As a writer who has had a literary agent, let me say this: they always have you approve your final bio for their pages. In fact, they almost always have you write it and then submit it. I highly doubt it’s a mistake, no matter who they get to take the fall. So I’m guessing the birther movement extended back to 1991 in a desperate attempt to destroy Obama? And the fact they used this bio until 2007 - right before he announced his candidacy for president which requires him to be a natural born citizen - can’t possibly raise any red flags. We’re just nuts. Funny how all of the other information in the bio is considered accurate, just not his birthplace. What a crock!
Here is a link to http://twitter.com/#!/miriamgoderich ... tweets.
Both McCain and Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008. Obama is in the WH. He is President and Commander in Chief. He has announced he is running for reelection.
How the Hell are you going to challenge his eligibility if not thru the courts? If it is not resolved thru the courts, then what good is your citing these cases and the law? It is irrelevant.
Ok, little man, I’ll be the Big Man and let you have the last word since you won’t even acknowledge that Rush does use current CNN footage and his staff for up to the minute news reports. How you can say he only uses his stack of stuff is beyond me, and denies the fact that he does use the above resources all the time - in real time.
The same as the cigar-smoke-filled room for the elites (on both sides) to decide for the great unwashed what is worth or not worth pursuing.
All I know is that THOSE Bastards made the work of finding out the truth a whole h3ll of a lot harder! And to top it off, they ran us down and demeaned us as nuts and lunatics ANYONE who thought something wasn't quite right.
That business of letting an "Elite" group of people decide things for the rest of us is LIBERAL bullsh*t. People on our side ought to know better.
They didn't have to agree with us, but to back stab us at every opportunity? For Obama? Why on Earth would they do such a thing?
I was born on Oklahoma 73 years ago and I speak perfect Okie, English not so much, that my Okie accent is not called out every time I open my mouth on the West coast.
It was written by a left wing loon, and is therefore garbage in my opinion. Not even worth reading.