Rejection of Obama by Electoral College
REJECTION OF OBAMA BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE—
That rather silly woman, with respect, Anne Applebaum, has had another go at the so-called ‘birthers’ in her typically ill-informed column in today’s Daily Telegraph. She regards the views of those who believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born in the United States as rational. By implication she also criticises the many Republicans who consider that Obama was born in what is now Kenya for rejecting the legitimacy of his claim to the presidency.
For a view to be rational it must be based on the evidence. Like most pro-Obama commentators Applebaum does not condescend to consider the evidence, indeed I have not seen rational discussion of the issue anywhere in the mainstream media. For a serious consideration of the issue you have to go online, onto reputable websites like Veterans Today.
The competing theories may be shortly stated. President Obama and the Democratic Party claim that he was born in Honolulu in the State of Hawai’i on August 4th 1961. They have been consistent about the date but not the place. Two different hospitals were put forward at different times in the 2008 election (I have been tracking this issue since Obama first came on my radar, as a state senator in Illinois, about ten years ago). The President and the Democrats have now settled on the Kapio’lani Maternity Hospital in Honolulu. Mainstream media commentators like Anne Applebaum are seemingly unaware that two different US birthplaces have been put forward by the President and his supporters. They tend to take the latest White House position as fact.
The Kenya theory, supported by many Republicans, a broad swathe of the international intelligence community (behind the scenes) and, in the public domain, by the entrepreneur Donald Trump, asserts that the President was born in or near Mombasa in what is now Kenya. Within this group there are five main sub-groups – those who say that the date of birth is correct but not the place, those who put the birth in 1960, those who say that the claimed maternal relationship is true but not the paternal relationship, those who put it the other way round and those who accept the claimed parentage but not place of birth. There is of course cross-over between these groups on the date of birth.
The CIA, semi-publicly, accepted maternity but challenged paternity. Two names for the father, including the radical black activist ‘Malcolm X,’ were privately circulated by ‘sources close to the CIA’ in 2010 and 2011. The CIA’s true position, supported I am told by a DNA test, is that the claimed paternity [to Barack Hussein Obama I of Kenya] is correct but not maternity [to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham-Obama].
Their official position [at the C.I.A.] is of course the White House line, i.e. that President Obama is eligible to be sworn in as President on January 21st. The CIA were actually quite slow to get to grips with the issue. So far as I know no work was done on it until I briefed them in, in 2007. Both MI5 and MI6 held out on them for some months afterwards, indeed I don’t think MI6 made full disclosure of their position until CIA had the DNA test done (I am told they used wine and water glasses, with the DNA swabs verified by fingerprints).
Homeland Security are said to agree with the CIA’s internal assessment. They of course have access to the immigration and passport records, which have never been disclosed publicly and are apparently troubling for the Democrats.
The Mossad, DGSE, BND, SVR, MI5 and MI6 go with Mombasa, although there is some disagreement between the agencies about date of birth.
SVR are rumored to favour 1961, e.g., whereas MI6 and Mossad are said to go with 1960.
MI5 have a file because the colonial internal security files came over from Nairobi in 1963.
Since Obama’s father and grandfather were both linked to the Mau-Mau terrorist organization they were very properly made the subjects of intelligence and police surveillance.
There is actually very little evidential support for the Honolulu theory. The document the media refer to as a ‘birth certificate’ is nothing of the sort. It is an electronic facsimile, unsupported by matching Hawai’i file entries, which are sealed. I respectfully associate myself with the criticisms of this document by the forensic specialists who examined it at the behest of Arizona lawman Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It consists of multiple layers and appears to have been generated by software. It is not an original, nor even a photocopy of an original.
It does not take the case very much further, save that its production is damaging to the White House’s credibility, as was the production of a shorter-form purported certificate in 2008, which was denounced at the time as a forgery by a Hawai’ian official, although the state then backtracked, under intense political pressure. The older fabrication was a two-dimensional computer file, which appeared to have been photo-shopped. The purported official seal lacked depth, a common mistake by forgers.
There is a self-serving entry in the Honolulu Advertiser, which again takes the case no further, since it has always been clear that the ‘parents’ were claiming the birth of a baby boy named Barack in Honolulu on 4th August 1961. The address in that advertisement was not real however, an odd feature.
There are some surprising lacunae in the evidence produced. The claimed mother’s medical records, e.g., have never been released. That calls for comment, since in the US there would have been an attending physician. One would expect to see some reference in the medical records for a teenage girl undergoing her first pregnancy. There are no photographs showing Ann Dunham whilst pregnant, and no evidence that she took ‘her’ child with her to Washington State, after she left school in Honolulu. There are no photographs of Barack Obama in the US before the age of about two.
Neither of the alleged places of birth has a record of Ann Dunham being admitted in the first week of August 1961, hospital admission records being something investigators have been calling for over four years. There are no supporting records from the attending physician, whose name was suppressed for some three years after the issue started to gain traction. There are issues over the numbering of the long form birth certificate produced, which does not appear to be in sequence. The relevant immigration records are sealed, something which troubled Sheriff Arpaio, an experienced lawman, and his investigating posse. I know some have challenged the sheriff’s good faith, but I see no reason to question it. He is a man of the highest integrity - we are not talking Thames Valley Police here.
The passport records are relevant, because President Obama cannot have visited Pakistan during the al-Huq dictatorship on a US passport. On what basis was he issued a passport by another state? If Indonesian what was said to the Indonesian authorities about his date and place of birth?
The President’s college records are relevant because he appears to have received scholarship funding for which he would not have been eligible had he been born in the USA. It is also a valid point that he took no steps to correct a book-cover bio describing him as Kenyan-born, a fact of which Anne Applebaum seems to be unaware.
Article 2 of the US Constitution seems to me to be clear enough. To be eligible for the presidency a candidate presented to the Electoral College has to be an American Citizen, born in the United States. It is a matter entirely for them but I see no reason why the Electors could not ask for evidence of Barack Obama’s eligibility. That applies to all candidates of all races from all parties by the way.
I don’t accept that Senator McCain was eligible to be sworn-in, as in my opinion he was born in a hospital in downtown Colon, in Panama. It wouldn’t matter if he were born on Coco Solo Marine Corps Air Base, as he claims, as that was not in the United States. Quite where on the base he was born is a moot point, since the hospital was not built for another five years. I don’t accept that Senator Goldwater qualified for the presidency either – his eligibility was queried at the time, as he was born in a territory, not a state.
If I am right in my conclusion that President Obama was born in what is now Kenya (it was then the Coastal Protectorate) he cannot have been born to Ann Dunham, as there is no evidence she was in Kenya in 1960 or 1961. Since she is his route to US citizenship (a somewhat doubtful route at best, since his father was already married and the form of ceremony of marriage between Ann and Barack Hussein Senior was bigamous) birth in the Protectorate would also take down his US Citizenship. He has never naturalized and is not in my opinion a US Citizen by birth (jus soli) or descent (jus sanguini).
If those conclusions are right Vice-President’s Biden suitability to be President might be called into question, on the ground that he either knew or ought to have known that the President was ineligible, although that would more properly be a matter for Congress on impeachment, not the Electoral College, as I read the US Constitution, not least as some states bind their electors to follow the popular vote.
We might see the House Speaker as President before next year is out. He might want to look out his birth certificate, a document the Democratic Party could have called for before nominating Barack Obama in 2008 (it’s odd that there is almost no due diligence on presidential candidates, but there is for presidential nominees once they’ve been elected).
9th November 2012
Post Script: Abridged Comments to Readers Who Commented On The Above Article, by Michael Shrimpton:
...The requirement for the President to be natural born comes from Article 2 of the US Constitution. I defer to US scholars on its interpretation, and opinion is divided, but as someone has pointed out the intent seems to have been to avoid Presidents on another country’s payroll, like Lord North (Ben Franklin confirmed that snippet from the French I gather) and presidents with dual citizenship, ie dual loyalties.
Most people born in the US to a foreign father will take their father’s nationality, by descent, hence the interpretation of ‘natural born’ which says that both parents should be US citizens at the time of birth, an interpretation which would rule out Rubio, who is soft on illegal immigration anyway.
It is best to avoid uncertainty and to select a candidate who is all-American, like Ronald Reagan or George McGovern. A Senator need only be a US Citizen, ie there is no problem with Rubio as Senator, just President or Vice-President.
Why the Democratic Party should choose a non-US Citizen to be their candidate for President of the United States is a question you will have to ask them. It’s sure got me puzzled!
Having provided the intel to the CIA in one sense I ‘own’ it, ie it is more a question of my providing intel to CIA rather than the other way round.
The CIA didn’t do a DNA test on the alleged mother, Ann Dunham, who sadly died of cancer in the 1990′s, but on the grandmother, ie her mother. Since that relationship is not in dispute that was a perfectly fair way of doing it.
The wine glass idea was mine by the way – MI5 had done something similar when a British politician exposed himself to blackmail by pretending to have fathered a child which wasn’t his. The true father was a party colleague. The mother and true father were both invited to a dinner. Entirely by co-incidence I was also invited. Special Branch had a tame caterer and Bob was your uncle, as it were.
My experience of DNA fingerprinting goes back to 1985, when I became I think the second lawyer in the world to use DNA fingerprinting in legal proceedings. At that stage the process was still experimental. I was advising an immigrant whose relationship to a sponsor in the UK had been questioned by the Home Office.
‘President Obama’ is not a colonial subject but a British Subject,. The status applies to all Commonwealth Citizens and is not limited to British Subjects who live in colonies, such as the Falkland Islands....
... There are a range of possible interpretations of natural born and difficulties arise in relation to US ships and aircraft, overseas bases, embassies and territories. The sensible thing would not to choose as your candidate some one like Senator Rubio, who would only meet some definitions.
I am not buying Senator McCain’s claim, with respect, to have been born on a US base, but if even he was my view is that you guys would need to amend your constitution.
We are as free to comment on your politics as you are on ours. After the CIA’s (strictly COREA Group but CIA assets were used) interference in the 1975 referendum campaign on EEC membership, in which the result was rigged, nobody over is too worried about being seen to interfere in US domestic politics! the result of that referendum, over the last 37 years, has cost us more than the entire US GDP. EU membership currently costs us around $6.5 billion a week.
In any event since Obama appears to have been born in a territory under British control and his father was under British surveillance as a terrorist we have intel which we are duty bound to share with you under UKUSA arrangements. Technically, since on balance he is a Citizen of Kenya (indeed even on his own case he is probably a Kenyan national by descent, ie a dual national), and Kenya is in the British Commonwealth, he is a British Subject.
... On constitutional and intel matters however I try to be objective....
...Frank Marshall Davis was the other name put round by the CIA, but I’m not buying. Some of the intel pukes at Langley wanted a name with a genuine claim to US Citizenship. They knew the marriage was bigamous and that even if she were the mother Ann Dunham could not pass her citizenship to BHO, so they came up with Davis, or Malcolm X – depended on who you talked to and when.
It was all a nonsense, as paternity was settled by the DNA test.
Only Kenya Colony was referred to as Kenya prior to 1963. Mombasa was formally part of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, and a British Protectorate. Technically, in my opinion, BHO at birth was a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar and a British Protected Person....
You can read the Original Article and Michael's comments in full, at:
[Reposted under Veteran's Today Reprint or Repost Permissions" rules stated at:
Reprint or Repost Permissions
You may repost a VT aritcle on your site as long as you make sure you link back to the original article. If you want to repost more than one article, please use our RSS feed ]