WHAT WENT ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO PROVIDE COVER FOR OBAMA?
March 2, 2011
Dear Prof. Rice,
I want to be as polite as I possibly can be with you. I have toiled long and hard and continue to do so on the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. So, I always read articles that suggest a “different” approach with great interest.
However, Professor, I take serious issue with many aspects of how you have characterized this serious matter, and I am afraid you are not offering what I would regard as fruitful suggestions. It is said that the power of an idea is its ability to create other ideas. Your article does that to an extent, but at the same time, it is troubling how much is overlooked, whether by accident or design.
You do touch on the key points in the debate over natural born citizenship but in a way that I find fails to lock horns.
If I may:
1) You get off to a very bad start with the use of the word “speculation.” The word suggests a lack of factual information. Nothing could be further from the truth, sir. The “truth” is staring us in the face. If Barack Obama, Sr. is really his father, then he is ineligible for office.
Instead, the pain and fear induced by the realization that we have hatched a cuckoo’s egg in the White House nest, if you will, has created a uniform paralysis throughout the federal government where EVERYONE refuses to address the most basic question. That pain and fear has produced incredible denial and a remarkable inability to recognize what would otherwise be factual information. One example is the Senate resolution (I believe it was S. 511) provided cover by John McCain by declaring him a natural born citizen. Know that then Senator Obama sought to introduce language which would have also given him status as a natural born citizen. The Senate rejected it. So, let’s have that debate. To me, there is little question that piece of information has probative value. You may want to question what went on behind closed doors – but that would just be speculation. Instead, I offer that when you look at similar efforts to redefine “natural born” including even a bill by Sen. Issa, of all people, limiting natural born to one parent as a citizen, they have been rejected. This has happened more than once in American legislative history. While I don’t have all the specific references, they are out there.
The attempt to introduce “new language” is tacit recognition there IS a definition of natural born citizenship, even if it is spelled out in statutory law. Moreover, one no less than Senator Bingham make a clear statement about what underlies natural born citizenship. I mean, sir, how much speculation are you going to indulge in over arguing about the word “parents” as opposed to “parent”? This is not hard, but others insist and creating a lot of phony and baseless fog around a simple and robust point: It takes two to have a baby.
The folks who insist there is no definition of natural born citizenship are setting a narrow and false standard. Period.
2) Natives are not the same as natural born. I know I am being a little picky here with your language but….The native-born category is a product of twisted reasoning from Wong Kim Ark. Again, if I may, I am not arguing for a universal standard of national citizenship, but consider how bizarre the reasoning is. If American parents are traveling in, say, Russia, and their child is born there, are they going to say the child is Russian or has any sort of claim on Russian citizenship? I think not. But that is the problem created by Wong Kim Ark.
3) Certification of Live Birth – There is a rich and deep literature the media is avoiding like the plague which establishes the COLB is a fraud. On this, two points. First, the leading expert, “Polarik” is the son of parents who were pioneers in digital photography. He learned everything from them and at a time when personal computers were growing in sophistication. So, he has personal and deep knowledge of how to manipulate digital images. However, he also got his advanced degrees in areas other than computer forensics. So, the media uses this as an excuse for not talking to him. But he clearly has the knowledge. Anyone who has grown up, as I, in the personal computer/laser printer/pixel manipulation/DOS era can understand what Polarik is saying, and it certainly passes the smell test. But, there are others too. The conclusion is the same – the document is a fraud in so many different ways, it would take some time to lay it all out. Second point: The Hawaii Dept. of Health refuses to certify they issued that image you see on the computer screen. This should send up lots of red flags. Despite claims of official signatures on the document, the supposed source refuses to acknowledge it came from them. That alone is grounds for an investigation.
Professor, you need to realize that without that COLB, Obama has produced NOTHING to establish his citizenship in any capacity. The notion, as some argue, that he is entitled to his privacy clearly have it all wrong. There is no information that establishes with authority who he is and where he comes from. None. Not enough people are waking up to the fact that the media provides this vast echoing illusion of who “Obama” is. Without that echo, it becomes more painfully obvious that there is a problem. For all we know, “Obama” is a nom de guerre just as was the name Yasser Arafat. Sorry, I just had to do that…
4) You are right that none of the judges in any of the suits have rendered a decision based on the merits of the case. However, I find you treat this point far too lightly. To me, this is a grave injustice, it shows how spineless the judges are and leaves many many people with the impression that the judiciary is also covering for Obama.
The implication that they have not provided a clear ruling because of the “bewildering” set of claims is mere sophistry. The judges have already shown they can do whatever they want in this matter without impunity. Therefore, I ask you, since judges routinely ignore the U.S. Constitution and just about any other law that does not suit their fancy, why could they not rule that green eyed martians and Obama both qualify as natural born citizens. The answer? They can’t. They know full well what the facts are and there is nothing bewildering about them at all. You embed a key fact inside a list of “bewildering array of claims”. His supposed father was never an American citizen, never intended to be one. That is very clear from Obama’s own account of his family history. That has probative value too.
There is nothing to speculate on here. Natural born citizenship requires BOTH parents to be citizens. As noted above, attempts to change that “implied” definition have failed routinely with legislative initiatives. Moreover, each one of those “bewildering” claims are legitimate issues for any committee devoted to the truth. Moreover, the FBI has been repeatedly beseeched to investigate. What a surprise they have done nothing.
So, this leads me to a note of confusion, Professor. This quote: “On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but that statement seems to violate everything else you have said in the article. How did you get from “speculation” and “bewildering array of claims” to that statement? To me, it doesn’t follow.
Also, you said on the failure of the suits: “Their lack of success cannot be ascribed simply to a hyper-technical evasion of judicial responsibility.” Having stood before two courts on this matter, I can tell you that is just plain wrong. And it is much more than just “evasion.” At one point, Judge Carter was the only person in the country who had stated publicly he would listen objectively to Orly Taitz’s case. That was, until he hired two law clerks who had worked for the opposing law firm – Patrick Coie. No one can tell me that move did not taint the outcome. The case was quickly thrown out after those two clowns showed up. Plus the judge issued a $20,000 sanction against her – which I think he was forced to do. That’s my “speculation.”
Also, you make no reference to the “mock trial” handled by Rev. Manning. Again, pain and fear paralyze people from looking at facts. Rev. Manning pointed out that the NYS Supreme Court (I know that is not their highest court) monitored the proceedings. He emphasized that the court would have cried foul over any missteps in how the mock trial was carried out. There were none, and yes Obama was found guilty. Again, the media buries these things with all the vigor and frantic energy of a badger.
5) The sojourn with Woodrow Wilson was instructive. I think it establishes him as clearly one of our weaker and more destructive presidents. The inability to establish a clear set of principles by which to govern shows he did not really understand government in the first place.
Somewhere there has to be a course in constitutional law that couples a deep understanding of political philosophy (starting with Plato and Aristotle) and extended consideration of both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, so that people begin to understand what it truly means to govern.
His confusion over investigative powers shows a superficial grasp of how governments function. Yes, Machiavelli would be laughing at him.
The “power” to investigate ends up being like water when it encounters a barrier. Water just goes around.
Frankly, what “powers of investigation” are there to discuss when one such as Herbert Hoover, in his early days, would automatically start a file on each person he enountered in his daily activities. Did he “investigate” someone? I don’t know. Is collecting information the same as investigating? Moreover, I have had the pleasure of reading some “investigative reports” from and for congressional committees in my field – biotechnology. You bet they were substandard.
It’s great to have a committee. But there is no way to keep the process from being queered by people who are determined to steer the committee right off the road. Too many times now have I seen people go out their way to make sure that only the wrong questions are asked. Clinton’s impeachment is the textbook example.
Anyway, thank you for the article, Professor, but the real message is that he is obviously ineligible and everyone, democrat and republican is too scared to announce the truth.
The tenor of the beginning of your article suggests there is no basis for investigation, but you end up suggesting there should be an investigation. I think it would have been much stronger if you started out noting that Obama is obviously avoiding answering questions. In the spirit of government waste and abuse, he insists on spending millions of dollars to avoid disclosure of a document which would only cost around $10 to disclose.
My proposal, Professor, is that history will remember you much better if you become a loud and persistent proponent of an investigation now because there are too many blatantly obvious issues all labeled “Constitutional crisis.”
All the best,
Editor’s Note: Cort Wrotnowski was the plaintiff in Wrotnowsky v. Bysiewicz in 2008 which claimed that Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz had failed to determine that Barack H. Obama was eligible to have his name placed on that state’s presidential ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. However, last year, Secretary of State Bysiewicz attempted to run for Connecticut Attorney General and was declared ineligible by the Connecticut Supreme Court due to her lack of ten years of “active practice” of law.