Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The U.S. State Department Fails to Address the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen and to Conclusively Show that Obama Was Born in Hawaii
Here is the State Department article as published on the America.gov blog:
“The Obama Birth Controversy— By Todd Leventhal, 21 August 2009
During the past year, a number of conspiracy theorists have suggested that President Obama was not born in the United States. If this were true — which it is not — he would not be eligible to be the U.S. president, who must be a natural-born American.
On July 27, 2009, Hawaii State Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino confirmed that Obama was born in the U.S. state of Hawaii, stating:
‘I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago ….’
In 2008, FactCheck.org examined a copy of Obama’s birth certificate held by the Obama campaign, verifying that it was a real, official document.
Nine days after Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, the Honolulu Advertiser included among its birth notices, “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4,” which it reprinted in its Aug. 17, 2009 issue. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin printed the identical birth notice one day later, on August 14, 1961. Its former managing editor Dave Shapiro says, ‘Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health. They would send the same thing to both papers.’
Interestingly, FactCheck.org determined that Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 (because his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963), then both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982, and solely a U.S. citizen after that.’” See:
http://blogs.america.gov/rumors/2009/08/21/the-obama-birth-controversy/.
Who is America.gov.? Its blog section, “About Us,” informs us of the following: “State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) engages international audiences on issues of foreign policy, society and values to help create an environment receptive to U.S. national interests. IIP communicates with foreign opinion makers and other publics through a wide range of print and electronic outreach materials published in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Persian, Russian, and Spanish. IIP also provides information outreach support to U.S. embassies and consulates in more than 140 countries worldwide.”
What is interesting is that there are only three comments to this Leventhal article that appear at the blog. This is unbelievable given the huge public outcry over the unresolved question of whether putative President Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President. The answer to this anomaly is probably found at the blog itself which states: “This blog has been archived. This content will remain available but will not be updated and commenting is disabled.” How convenient for the State Department to publish such drivel and then prevent the interested public from commenting on it.
This new State Department “myth” and “conspiracy” article, other than conceding that Obama was at least born with divided allegiance and loyalty to the United States (which assumes that he was born in Hawaii) and Great Britain which at age two transferred to allegiance and loyalty to Kenya, adds absolutely nothing to the already existing information and arguments on the question of whether putative President Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." The article is incorrect in stating that Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired in 1982, for it actually expired in 1984, if he did not confirm it. It simply repeats the worn-out arguments supporting Obama's presidential eligibility (FactCheck, the two newspaper birth announcements, and what Hawaii official say in 2008 and 2009) and stamps them with the imprimatur of officialdom (the U.S. State Department no less). One has to wonder why after over two years of debate on the question of where Obama was born, the only evidence that the State Department has of Obama being born in Hawaii is what Mr. Leventhal has published in this article. Why does not the State Department tell us that it has officially examined Obama’s 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate and the hospital records relating to that birth (that should be there if Obama was born in the Kapi'aloni Hospital as he claims) and has confirmed with the hospital in which Obama was allegedly born that the State Department's official examination of those original records all conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii? The article also misses and probably intentionally avoids so much of the pertinent information and points on the Founders’ and Framers’ natural law and law of nations definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" (see Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html ) and on the question of whether Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii (see A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html ), both questions having absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories or whether the moon landing occurred on a Hollywood stage. The piece is nothing more than a manipulation of selective information to reach a desired result, a technique that various bodies have used in addressing the question of whether Obama is eligible to be President. This is typical official propaganda.
I am now working on a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al. v. Obama/Congress et al case. The Kerchner plaintiffs and I will appreciate the support of all those who want the question of Obama's eligibility brought to justice and decided by the rule of law rather than by a biased voting majority, the two major political parties whose only purpose appears to be to gain and maintain power, and all their friends and our enemies who stand to gain in one way or another by the status quo and/or by the radical changes Obama has planned for our Constitutional Republic. We have to convince the Supreme Court that it should accept the Kerchner case for review because it presents important issues which the Supreme Court should decide and that the Kerchner plaintiffs do have standing to bring their claims against Obama and Congress.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 25, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.