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
click here to read article
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.
The acquisition of citizenship at birth does not inherently guarantee eligibility for the presidency.
It looks to me like it said that in both the original and revised bios. It's a strange thing to say though since the first time he set foot in Chicago was 1984 and he would have been 23 yrs old. "Composite" childhood?
Mr. Obama's Neighborhood
The Democratic candidate has made his home in Chicago's Hyde Park, a place that's not like any other in America.
"He first moved there in 1984, when he came to Chicago as a community organizer, and he returned after graduating from Harvard Law School."
Excellent and logical point. Obama most certainly received a copy of this brief bio before it was printed in the literary agents promotion brochure ... that's standard practice.
not a matter of should, but by the Constitution they are. Should water be wet? Should pigs not fly while birds can?
Sounds like we’ve got “Buckhead the Sequel” on our hands.
The only way the courts would take up the issue is if there arises irrefutable proof that Obama is not eligible, e.g., he was born abroad, his birth certificate provided by the WH and the state of Hawaii is a forgery, Obama is holding an invalid SSN, etc. Someone with standing needs to raise the issue. AZ is headed that way.
The best thing is to just plant the seeds of doubt that will make voters not want to vote for Obama.
And who is going to bell the cat?
I addressed the substance of the opinion. It’s why I said it doesn’t outweigh 18 Supreme Court justices. It doesn’t matter if Olson was Obama’s adviser. Tribe was. He had a conflict of interest. All he had to do was to steer this in the direction that they were told to go in.
I stopped reading once I got to this point. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to "naturalize". It does not grant them the power to create "natural citizens." Just as an adopted child cannot be family by blood, neither can an adopted citizen be a "natural citizen" just because Congress makes them a citizen through statute.
Since your premise is flawed, I saw no point in reading further.
interesting newsletter of May 2012 ... http://www.dystel.com/newsletter/newsletter-54-may-2012/
Har, hair, had, HIPAA no longer exists as you will find out when you go to the doc. Doctors are now asking if you have guns in your home, did you know that? Your daughters however, do have a right to privacy from you.
My first attempt at a response disappeared on me — hope this does not double-post.
As the original birthers, Bill & Hill are likely to have vaccuumed up all the good evidence, and would have no scrupples about passing on juicy bits to help O to the exit. Dem’s would beg either of them to step in and save the day.
Your civil suit idea is excellent. All of us who oppose communism and fraud embody a giant class for a class-action lawsuit against O. But Defendants should include the Dem Party, and Nancy Pelosi (for her role in certifying the nomination as Chair of the D. Convention, and the election as Speaker). Throw in several corrupt Hawaii governors and numerous Health Dept personnel for good measure.
Most of the time the bio for a literary agent is generated by the author him/herself. The excuse is complete bulls*it. Most of the time the info is pulled from initial query/submission that the author purposefully submitted to the agent.
There is also the fact that Bill Ayers was probably the guy who connected all this and it is HE that wrote this bio.
link to all newsletters from mention company seen on web at present ... http://www.dystel.com/newsletter/
The bottomline is that we know very little about Obama except for what he (or Ayers) has written in his phony autobiography. Obama has never been truly vetted. His life has been a fiction. It is unbelievable that we have a Manchurian candidate in the WH.
He is a bastard that is your new position? Most here would agree with that so maybe you should post that argument in a separate thread.
here is a client list (posted on web) ... http://www.dystel.com/client-list/
Former SG Ted Olson suggests Heller could impact broad prohibitions on felon gun rights
[L]ittle attention has been paid to the effect that the court's decision could have on regulations defining which groups of people can be excluded from gun ownership. "The Court might decide there are some classes of felons that ought to be treated differently from other classes of felons," a former solicitor general, Theodore Olson, said in an interview on Thursday about the prospect that the Supreme Court may eventually permit felons to own guns.
In interviews, several legal experts say that lower court judges should interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Heller to permit non-violent felons to own weapons. "Why not? I can't see why they shouldn't have gun rights if they don't have a record of violent crime," a lawyer who financed the Heller case, Robert Levy, said. "If the nature of their crime has nothing to do with the commission of violence than it's a pretty strange punishment that would deprive ex-felons of the ability to defend themselves."...
He doesn't. He has an affected Chicago accent, much like someone who moves to the South will take on a slight accent.
Personally, I cringe every time he says words like "jobs" since he sounds like he's imitating Dan Akroyd playing Elwood Blues.
That’s funny! I thought for sure you had.
Alan Keyes although a candidate on the same ballot as Zero was deemed to have no standing, and as far as I can tell, no human on earth has any standing on this issue.
Unless Obama’s eligibility is successfully challenged in the courts, he will remain the President and will run for reelection. Citing court cases is meaningless. We have the Tribe/Olson analysis commissioned by the Senate that reached a different conclusion citing other cases. But it was just their opinion just like you have your opinion. So now what?
Look at this ... one inch down on right side .... Historical fiction. - Miriam
Thanks for the reference. Of course, until we have a definitive ruling from the courts, we will just opine.
The MSM have pounded into everyone the Hawaii birth story, and demanded People support and accept the Hawaii birth story.
We do not need to explain anything. We have two competing stories, one a birth in Kenya, the other a Hawaii birth
I say we now demand that Progressive’s explain which story is false, and why Obama used that false story.
Personally, I believe Barry understood the story of the Kenyan student, Barack Sr. and how the Kenyan got an affirmative action free ride.
Barry then used the “template” to con others and get free stuff and favors.
Also, Barry can play the my “Father” is a Harvard Graduate card to bolster his application to Harvard Law.
May 17th? That’s early.
Thanks for the link. This is just another reason why SCOTUS must decide.
correction and link ... maybe eight inches down ... on their website ... Historical fiction. - Miriam ... http://www.dystel.com/submit.html
It’s not about courts, it’s about creating enough doubt for voters.
Thanks for the link. This is just another reason why SCOTUS must decide.
Just wondering how many thousand Natural Born American citizens were born in overseas American military installation hospitals. Why would McCain's citizenship be questioned?
Arizona will probably be the first state to throw BHO2 off the ballot, with Missouri afterwards.
It isn’t the responsibility of the courts to force him out of office. And you’re flat-out stupid to suggest Tribe-Olson analysis supercedes the U.S. Supreme Court holding of Miner v. Happersett, which in NOT my opinion.
Unless be ceases to live should be added as An termite possibility
Your comment is true.
I get a “Page Not Found” Rather than this hunt around — what is it you think is interesting?
I looked at original list and nothing jumped out at me.