 |
| COL Gregory Hollister USAF (RET) |
Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.The Federal EIN number of the requesting party is redacted, actually physically removed with a razor knife, from the copy of the search results so we cannot say with certainty that the requestor was in fact Gregory Hollister. However, several birther blogs have published the search results and attributed them to Hollister.
 |
| SSVN Lookup for "Obama's" SS # |
Yesterday, Orly Taitz filed a first amended complaint in her new FOIA lawsuit demanding Obama's social security records, Taitz v Astrue, and attached several exhibits. One was the same SSVN search result page that is shown above. Another was an apparently recently generated copy of Barack Obama's draft registration record that had been mailed to someone. The recipient's address portion of the record had been redacted, again using a razor knife. However, the recipient left the bar codes used by the government in automated mailings. A poster at The Fogbow forum named Raicha quickly Googled POSTNET bar code and determined that the recipient was in fact one Gregory Hollister of Colorado Springs, CO.
Why is this a big deal? Well in fact the site that Hollister apparently accessed is the site where one can update their address and obtain a copy of their selective service registration record via mail. So the person who obtained the record was pretending to be Barack Obama and was pretending to change his address to a new one in Colorado Springs. Some would call this identify theft and possibly mail fraud.
 |
| Obama Draft Registration from Taitz Motion |
Good Authority has it that both incidents have been reported to the appropriate agencies. These incidents lead to several questions:
- Did Hollister act on behalf of Taitz to obtain these documents?
- Is Taitz culpable by including these illegally obtain documents in a Federal court filing? (Which she conveniently copied to USAG Eric Holder!)
- Why did he redact his address and EIN number if he didn't know he was doing something "sneaky"?
- Did the SSA provide President Obama with a new social security number after his number was published by Taitz? That could explain why the SSVNS returned a code showing the number was not used.
- What laws were broken when Hollister or someone else obtained this information?
This is a portion of the show where we discussed the illegal database access:
Raicha from The Fogbow explained how she decoded the POSTNET bar code to determine the exact address of the requestor:
More information is available on the Taitz v Astrue topic at The Fogbow forum.Wouldn't it be ironic if a birther actually went to prison or paid a hefty fine for their sad preoccupation over where or how Barack Obama received his social security number? Remember that this tempest in a teapot is over whether Obama was a assigned a number starting with 042 that is normally geographically associated with Connecticut. Yet the SSA cautions not to make too much of the geographic location and social security numbers:
Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.
Yes, that is what this is all about. Orly Taitz has been screeching about this for two years and has nothing more. Now her pal Gregory Hollister may have committed a felony trying to chase a shadow. These people are sad if nothing else.
[Update 3/30/2011] The Colorado Springs Gazette ran an article yesterday on COL Hollister. The article quoted Hollister on the social security access:
Hollister denied breaking any laws.Oh really? Hollister sent Obama a fraudulent 1099 form and that made it all OK? What about impersonating the President to get a copy of his selective service record? Did the 1099 cover that too?
“I was very meticulous and made sure everything I did was compliant with the law,” Hollister said, noting that he sent Obama an 1099 tax form.
Buckle up kids. This story is just starting to launch.
[Update 4/9/2011] The Fogbow now has a very well done page up debunking the entire "Obama social security number fraud" birther story: The President's Social Security Number
I hope that asshole Hollister gets the proverbial book thrown at him. Another military graduate who has disgraced his academy and his service branch. And Taitz needs to have her computer searched to determine the extent of a conspiracy, if any, here. If he was doing this at the behest of Taitz, that is one further reason for her immediate disbarment.
ReplyDeleteI think it's ironic that Neal Sankey & Orly Taitz can now add another address, a Colorado Springs address, to their database of Obama's addresses.
ReplyDeleteWhat morons.
~mimi
Heh, wouldn't it be grand if Hollister got re-activated and then court martialed? He could then change his address to Leavenworth, Kansas.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of thing registers for me on another level: the disdain and superiority that the birthers have for this particular President. It's part of the nonsense like calling him Barry Soetoro, and 'putative,' and so forth. There's this 'show-us-your-papers-BOY' thread that runs though all birthism. In this context, I think the bozos like Hollister have adopted a relative moralism that says meddling with Obama's records and privacy is less important than their own, less worthy than the protection of law. To them, the President is less than a man, less even than a common criminal who is presumed innocent before convicted. The birthers are pompous, arrogant, superior idiots, who show by their every felonious action an ever deeper contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, the noble democratic processes that characterize the republic, and the will of We the People.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the perpetrator of this scheme did not first inform himself of the various federal laws addressing mail fraud and wire fraud, 18 U.S. §§ 1342, 1343. Anyone who assisted in this supremely stupid act is also subject to prosecution as a conspirator, 18 U.S.C.§ 1349.
ReplyDeleteGood write up RC, I posted a link on CIP.
ReplyDeleteNow, is is a matter of If...the Government wants to do anything about it. I would appreciate some action as the Gubmint has to protect the access to these records to the authorized persons only. Vigorous prosecution would set an example for others who screw with Gubmint data bases.
ReplyDeleteThanks Ms Daisy! Congrats on the new blog, too.
ReplyDeleteGo Directly to Jail
ReplyDeletePerhaps now Orly will be deported as the seditious foreign agent that she is.
ReplyDeleteNone of you care if the constitutional requirements were filled with President Obama do you? I won't take the handle of birther myself, though I have no doubt you will happily lobb it at me, but can't you at least cede that the requirements, scant as they may be, should be observed and that in this particular case the details are far from clear? Just the definition of Natural Born Citizen for instance; what do you think it means? I realize that the SCOTUS has not defined the term but can we agree that a father with British citizenship and questionable travels in his youth to places that typically an American citizen would have difficulty getting into begs the question of fulfilling said constitutional requirements? Sorry but I'm getting very tired of anyone questioning his eligibilty being grouped into one very singular camp of thought; not born in America. What if he was and yet still not eligible? Oh and one more for any of you stating he is the first president to get this kind of treatment and that it's only because of his skin color...there was a white guy who was elected and for certain was not eligible. See if you can figure out who. The search may prove very enlightening.
ReplyDeleteBrutus -
ReplyDeleteAccording to US law, Obama is a Natural-Born US citizen. As such, he meets the US citizenship requirements to be President, despite the citizenship of his father.
As for your comment about "questionable travels in his youth to places that typically an American citizen would have difficulty getting into", I presume you're talking about the false claim that there was a travel ban for US citizens for Pakistan, right? It might interest you to know there was no travel ban the year Obama went there. Matter of fact, the New York Times published a travel article in August of that year with what tourists needed to go.
I presume the "white guy" you're mentioning is the claim that Chester Arthur was also ineligible. Again, since Arthur was born in the US, then under US law he was a natural born US citizen.
Brutus,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you want to give foreign countries the right to decide who can run for President? Tomorrow Castro can declare Sarah Palin a Cuban citizen and disqualify her- would you be OK with that?
ONLY the laws of the United States matter when deciding who is a United States citizen. Obama was born in the US, so he is a citizen at the moment of birth, AKA "Natural Born Citizen".
The only other type of citizen is naturalized, meaning they became a citizen at some point after their birth and have naturalization papers.
Obsolete, you are actually mistaken.
ReplyDeleteNaturalized citizen, you note correctly, becomes a citizen by act of law after birth.
Being born on US soil does not make one a "Natural Born Citizen". There is a difference between "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen". A NBC requires both parents to be citizens at the time of birth.
So, since we've been told that Obama's father was a Kenyan and thus a British subject, he could have been born on live TV in the Lincoln bedroom, and would still not be a Natural Born Citizen.
@Anonymouse
ReplyDeleteYou are in error, of course, on your definition of natural born citizen. The meaning of the term is exactly what it says, natural born citizen means born a citizen, and it always has meant that. You may have just learned that Obama's father was Kenyan but everyone else knew that a long time ago. More importantly, Hillary Clinton and John McCain knew it in 2008 and never gave it a second thought.
Who cares where Obama was born. He is the worst excuse for a leader of our once great free nation. He has no respect for our nation and wants to reshape us into a third world nation. And he is doing a great job so far!
ReplyDelete@Patrick M, Where are you getting that definition?
ReplyDelete@Obsolete, Wow! Uh wow. That was nearly the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Where did that even come from about Castro declaring who is a citizen? Obama's father wash a British subject because of where he was born not because someone just declared it later in life.
Oh and @ RealityCheck, "you are in error, of course" a bit snotty don't you think? Especially considering your lack of source material.
ReplyDeleteOne more @ Obsolete, There are only two classifications of citizen recognized in the U.S.? Really? And dual citizenship...what about that?
ReplyDelete@ Brutus
ReplyDeleteHere is a good place to start: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/congressional-research-service-report-on-obamas-eligibility/
and from Blacks Law Dictionary:
Black's Law Dictionary backs up the common law:
"Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition."
There is nothing in the US Code that recognizes a dual citizen as anything other than a citizen of the United States for any right or privilege granted to citizens. One is either a citizen of the US or not. Other citizenship currently or previously held is irrelevant.
@RC, So you are saying that a person with dual citizenship but born in America meets the constitutional requirements? I just want to make sure I'm clear that is what you are saying before I commence. Tread lightly now.
ReplyDeleteAgain @ RC, after reading your link I will simply paste a comment that followed all that drivel, as it is as clear or clearer than I could have said myself... "If your interpretation is correct, then no one has the obligation to vet a candiadate beore or after the election. Not any “agency” of the government, not Congress itself, and certainly not the courts. In short, you have single=handedly transformed the natural born citizen clause into precatory but not mandatory advice. This would be similar to all the other “political question” cases the courts have decided not to hear, starting with whether the courts can enjoin the other two branches from sending troops overseas to engage in combat without a formal declaration of war (the last formal declaration of war was in December 1941"
ReplyDelete@ Brutus
ReplyDelete"@RC, So you are saying that a person with dual citizenship but born in America meets the constitutional requirements? I just want to make sure I'm clear that is what you are saying before I commence. Tread lightly now. "
Yes a person as you described may be president or vice president. At least two have and no one in authority blinked an eye over it.
When does the de Vattel crap start? I will ready my barf bag.
There is something Obama is hiding by not releasing any of his work or school records, he campaigned on an open government and has acted more like a dictator than anything else. He should not be allowed to run again without fully disclosing everything about his past, this country can not handle another 4 more years of Obama.
ReplyDeleteObama should be and will be allowed to run again. If you are not satisfied with his record or with what he has or has not released then you certainly don't have to vote for him. What you and the other birthers want to do is take away my right to vote for a legitimate candidate. I do not take that lightly and I will do what I can legally to make sure you do not.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, did you catch the latest polls?
RC, the two cases which you refer to have at least one major difference from that of Obama. Both of the fathers were naturalized citizens. Obama's father was not. As to your feeling that I, or anyone else, is trying to infringe upon your right to vote for Mr. Obama, I am sorry you feel that way. I can respect your stance and your commitment to protect your perceived right. On the contrary however, I equally do not take lightly what I fear is the blatant disregard for the constitution or the slightly less nefarious charge that this is just a ruse designed to inflame the masses. For a very long time I allowed myself to be convinced with the very simple argument that if there was anything true about this the Clintons or McCain would have brought it to life. Over time, I have looked farther into it and this simple explanation no longer works for me. Again it just seems so clear that something is being hidden when the guy ran on the near singular pontification point that he was going to be open, transparent, a man of the people if you will. It went from that to status quo and worse real quick. Our presidents are our own in the sense that they all become a part of this nation and all of its citizenry. Do they legally have less rights that another man, of course not. But are they expected to be held to a higher standard, you bet! Do I or any of us have the right to demand he show BC, college transcripts, or anything else? No. Out of respect for his countrymen and the office he holds…a resounding yes!
ReplyDelete@ Brutus
ReplyDeleteWhat two cases are you referring?
My right is not a perceived right. It is a right in fact. Obama met the requirements to be on the ballot in 50 states and DC. He was elected properly and confirmed by Congress. He has presented more proof of his eligibility than any prior president. At this point anyone who believes Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and isn't eligible is not rational. I am not sure where you are doing your research but you have been deceived by charlatans and it is a pity. Pardon me if I do not take someone with your arguments at all seriously.
No pardon necessary though I will point out that you are the one stating that the time for discussion is over, that the case is decided and no more debate is warranted or of value. The two cases I am referring to, which I took as the same you were referring to, would be Buchanan and Arthur, both of which were of immigrant fathers. I am doing my research in many of the same places as you no doubt, though I am obviously more open to what I find. As you will notice I have made no absolute claims to the matter as you have done. I opened with the admittance that the Supreme Court has yet to define the term Natural Born, and first of all I would like to see that done. Still the question that begs asking is why on earth do you think the founders put that qualifier in there? If not for the explicit reason of keeping someone with dual country interest from leading this nation and acting as Commander In Chief of our military, then why? Please answer me this and let’s see who is grasping.
ReplyDelete@ Brutus
ReplyDeleteObama has held only US citizenship since his early 20's. If he had any allegiance to Kenya or Great Britain why did he choose not to confirm his citizenship? You are confusing allegiance with citizenship. Many US citizens have feelings akin to allegiance for the country of their heritage including Mexico, Italy and Israel, for example. No Congress has ever felt dual citizenship was an issue since they never passed any law that would limit rights for those who ever held or still hold dual citizenship.
Obama's former British citizenship was well known before he was even nominated. If there were any legal issue would it not have been mentioned by any of the thousands of real constitutional attorneys? It is only mentioned now by those without any credentials like Apuzzo and Donofrio who hate Obama openly.
You say that is was well known even before his campaign. I charge that it is hardly well known even now, thus the controversy. If there were legal challenges, you state with authority, that they would have already been made. It's a good thing that isn't always the rule to go by or no law would ever be challenged because it obviously would have already been done before. That actually points me to the most troubling part of this whole thing. The grounds for dismissal on every case has been a lack of standing by the party bringing the case. Who, if not every citizen, has the standing to make clear the legitimacy of our president?
ReplyDelete@ Brutus
ReplyDeleteHad you not heard Obama had written a book called "Dreams of my Father"?
You should read the decisions by Judge Carter, Judge Land, Judge Surrick, and the Appellate courts. They explain that to have standing the injury must be particularized and not some vague general injury that translates to "I don't like him and don't think he is qualified." Standing in Federal courts is limited by the Constitution:
"There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements."
Standing is not the only reason the cases have been dismissed either. Other reasons have been lack of jurisdiction and redressability.
The judges in the birther cases have ruled correctly that vague claims of perceived injury by the litigants fall short of the standing requirements. The voters all have the ability to voice their opinion on the meaning of the Article II requirements and a candidate's qualifications at the ballot box.
One court did give it's opinion on the matter of the meaning of natural born citizen in Indiana. that was Ankeny v Daniels. It is the meaning we all have known forever: natural born means citizen at birth.
Yes I know of his book though I do not presume its content to be general knowledge, again as evidenced by the continuance of this discussion nationally. I looked into the court case you referred that supposedly ruled on the definition of natural born and while I admit that it ruled his father’s citizenship was irrelevant, I hardly drew that it made clear the definition. Further though I would remind you that that point is exactly what I have stated from the beginning is prerequisite to all of the rest of this. What I am reading from those who would seem to align with your opinion on this matter seem to purpose that the only reason the founders put that qualifier in the constitution was to prevent English or other nobility from being elected and forming an American monarchy. As you failed to answer that question, am I safe to say that is your belief? This is where a lot of my frustration comes from in all of this. When it comes to our founding I have studied both the men and their writings, their daily activities and their views of government. It is glaringly evident to me what is persistently argued and spun of what these men designed and laid out in the ways of checks and balances. I ask again, what was the intention of that particular qualifier if not to prevent someone with dual allegiances from taking command of our military and acting as the foremost ambassador of America to the world? You may have mistakenly put me into such camps of people calling for his removal from office but that is unwarranted as I have not called for that. I know that even if it were made known that he was not eligible that there is no constitutional means for removal and therefore I am not looking for it. I seek clarification only that we may move forward. If it is the last word that you crave I will acquiesce but I would ask that you have more consideration and perhaps patience with your countrymen that ask little more than openness and transparency from those who would represent us to the world.
ReplyDeleteYes I know of his book though I do not presume its content to be general knowledge, again as evidenced by the continuance of this discussion nationally. I looked into the court case you referred that supposedly ruled on the definition of natural born and while I admit that it ruled his father’s citizenship was irrelevant, I hardly drew that it made clear the definition. Further though I would remind you that that point is exactly what I have stated from the beginning is prerequisite to all of the rest of this. What I am reading from those who would seem to align with your opinion on this matter seem to purpose that the only reason the founders put that qualifier in the constitution was to prevent English or other nobility from being elected and forming an American monarchy. As you failed to answer that question, am I safe to say that is your belief? This is where a lot of my frustration comes from in all of this. When it comes to our founding I have studied both the men and their writings, their daily activities and their views of government. It is glaringly evident to me what is persistently argued and spun of what these men designed and laid out in the ways of checks and balances. I ask again, what was the intention of that particular qualifier if not to prevent someone with dual allegiances from taking command of our military and acting as the foremost ambassador of America to the world? You may have mistakenly put me into such camps of people calling for his removal from office but that is unwarranted as I have not called for that. I know that even if it were made known that he was not eligible that there is no constitutional means for removal and therefore I am not looking for it. I seek clarification only that we may move forward. If it is the last word that you crave I will acquiesce but I would ask that you have more consideration and perhaps patience with your countrymen that ask little more than openness and transparency from those who would represent us to the world.
ReplyDelete@ Brutus
ReplyDeleteThere is good reason that the NBC clause is jokingly referred to as "the stupidest clause in the Constitution" by some Constitutional scholars. We know that the writers were aware of European monarchs who had been installed merely because of their bloodlines. We also know that the writers put increasing terms for age and citizenship for representative senator and president. It seems they cared about term of citizenship more than anything doesn't it?
You are incorrectly equating birth citizenship with allegiance. I was born in another state and I have no special allegiance to that state. I root against their state college teams against every opponent.
You seem obsessed with obtaining a court opinion once and for all for the meaning of NBC. Unfortunately the courts and Congress seem to be uninterested in granting your wish. If Donald Trump really cared about the issue and were anything other than an attention whore he would run as a Democrat and file suit against Obama in the primaries. I would hope he hires the legal team of Taitz, Apuzzo, and Donfrio. I would highly recommend that he does.
Oddly enough you kind of supported my point with your bit about state loyalty only in reverse. You wishing for success for anyone challenging your home state sounds as though you have allegiances built upon your former residence, a negative allegiance but an allegiance no matter. Likewise it would seem rational that a person with direct ties to another country should not be given the proverbial keys to ours that they may show such allegiance built preference or disdain, whichever the case may be. As to my seeming obsession with the law being made clear, are you contrary to that idea? Would you rather it remain misunderstood? Yes, I am obsessed with equality in the law.
ReplyDelete@ Brutus
ReplyDeleteHave you ever looked at the collection of racists and idiots who share your views at websites like the Post and Email and Dr. Kate's? Whenever you find yourself allied with those folks you should do a reality check. ;)
So you are admitting that birth citizenship has nothing to do with allegiance as it can be positive or negative? Now we are making progress my friend! I don't root for LSU either and I was only there for a few months.
How do you possibly draw the line that if something can have a positive or negative effect it becomes irrelevant? Are you admitting that it could have an effect? That is the question.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question about whether I look at all who may share my views, no, at least not in the weighing of my conclusion. I think for myself, I research what I can, and most of all I accept my limitations. I have admitted that no real response is looming on the matter and yet I don't seem able to make you admit that perhaps it should be cleared up. Finally I would also make clear that I don't do that to others "lump into large groups or guilt by association" or I would simply point out some nefarious types that lauded the election of Obama and make you defend him for that. It is ridiculous of anyone seeking truth to do that type of thing and for one who seems well read on the matter I do not suggest you patronize the practice again.
I suppose this is what they call an impasse. I appreciate your time and well researched points even though my opinions have not been moved. I am fully convinced that the biggest problems that our nation faces can be overcome simply by citizens becoming informed for themselves and discussing with their neighbors the best way forward. I intend to follow this blog so perhaps we may match wits in the future on another topic.
@ Brutus
ReplyDeleteWhat I am suggesting is that there is no significant correlation between a secondary birth citizenship and allegiance.
Are you proposing that the accepted presidential requirements that one be a citizen at birth, a resident of the USA for 14 of 35 years of life and then survive an 18 month grueling election process are inadequate? Did it fail when Obama was elected easily? All the racists seem to think so. Not many other people do.
Brutus- my comments are correct and they still stand. If they are "nearly the most ignorant statement I have ever read" then you must never have read any of the racist, seditious lies posted on most birther sites.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find offensive is an American who wants to give a foreign country the power to decide who can run for President in America. That is exactly what your desire to prohibit someone with duel-citizenship would do.
I deleted this comment by Brutus last night but decided to post it anyway after thinking about it. I have been called worse than this by better than Brutus.
ReplyDelete"And that folks, is an idiot. Notice how he was given respect and yet comes back with blatant dishonesty? See how the entire conversation was about one point of qualification and yet he is now painting it as though the validity of the constitution was what was being questioned? Also witness the clever words like "significant" he uses to absolve himself from stating one way or the other his opinion on the correlation of someone holding dual citizenship and allegiance. On a time I mistook this person as a worthy adversary with which I might explore opposing views and offer insights of my own all in the name of honest debate but no more, as you may witness this fool has shown that behind a façade of seemingly unambiguous motivation his purpose is simply to carry the water of his betters.
@RC, I would say that I wish you well but I don’t so I won’t."
Brutus still doesn't understand that the citizenship one inherited as an infant is not the same as allegiance, which is a decision made by an adult. It is the same as saying that if one is born to Catholics they always have spiritual allegiance to the Pope even though they may come to think Catholicism is a complete load of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThat's Dreams from My Father. Great article, though.
ReplyDeleteOh I got re-posted. How very non-censoring of you. Well I'll just leave off with asking one more question. Why couldn't a naturalized citizen become president? I mean the adult decision about allegiance is cleared up right?
ReplyDelete@obsolete, no I checked and your statement is still grossly ignorant. If you want to try and elaborate on how Castro could determine whether or not I am a citizen based on what I have said, by all means.
ReplyDeleteAnd finally @ RC...So I read the transcript on the very next story after this one and upon reading I am now completely confused. What you say there falls pretty squarely where I am at but here everytime I hint that the open questions should be answered you act as though I'm reaching for straws. Not sure if that's a local radio show or what but seriously I am now confused.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction on Dreams from My Father, Doc.
ReplyDeleteBrutus, Brutus, Brutus
You know I could have gone back and deleted everything you ever posted. That is what Orly, Dr. Kate or Sharon Rondeau would have done. Believe me I can tell you from experience.
You said: "Why couldn't a naturalized citizen become president? I mean the adult decision about allegiance is cleared up right? "
No a naturalized citizen cannot become president since they would not be natural born. There are two types of US citizens: naturalized and natural born. Except for being able to run for president they are completely equivalent. There is no third Constitutional category called dual citizen. You are arguing for your own obscure interpretation for the meaning of "natural born citizen" based on a perceived allegiance by birth. I demonstrated that that correlation is false. However, the primary controlling fact is that there are two classes of citizenship only and dual citizenship is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.
All you have demonstrated is your ability to dance around without saying much. So a person with dual citizenship has no allegiance problems because they made the adult choice not to recognize the other citizenship status and yet another adult who formally swears allegiance has an alegiance problem. It all goes back to that question I asked, "which you failed to answer" about why the qualifier is there at all.
ReplyDeleteBrutus, let's start over. There is nothing in US case law or court rulings that creates a third class of citizen. US v Wong Kim Ark -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html - specifically says the child of two non-citizens born in the US is a natural born citizen equivalent to the child of two citizens.
All of this back and forth on what if this and what if that, looking for a poorly chosen word on which you change the direction of the discussion is meaningless.
We have discussed why the NBC requirement was included. The early Americans had fought a war to separate from a monarchy. They had seen nobles from other countries installed as monarch based merely on bloodline so some were reluctant to create a powerful executive officer. This position had not existed in the Articles of Confederation. As a compromise the requirement of lifelong citizenship was added. It is that simple.
ReplyDeleteAs Alan commented, no one since the WKA decision has espoused your viewpoint that a natural born citizen via jus soli could not be president.
@ Alan. On the contrary sir, I am not looking for a poorly chosen word to re-direct the conversation but rather I am trying to use my opponents own logic to point out that my original point of defining NBC is important. It would seem absolutely clear to me, based on what I know of the logic that guided the men who included the clause, that a person with dual citizenship would have similar limitations as a naturalized citizen because both have a higher chance of conflicting loyalties when considering the weight of the office. Never once have I said that it is clear that President Obama should be removed from office but rather I have stated that this does present the opportunity for clarifying, by means of the Supreme Court, what the qualifications are and mean. Again, what possible logic can you draw that says a person with dual citizenship has no loyalty issue but a naturalized citizen, who as an adult made the decision to publicly swear fealty, does? That’s it. That is all I am saying and I think again, it is worth noting that ole RC seems to mirror my point of view in his transcript posted on the next blog post as this one and yet here he seems unable accept the logic in it. Further that with his turn to dishonesty and you have what I consider to be the biggest problem with discourse in our society. Almost an “I’ll go down in flames before I admit you are right” type of mentality. This will lead us right down the path we are on; if citizens can’t use their own common sense on each issue singularly but instead resort to cheerleading for their perceived team we will go down in history as the most ignorant people this world has ever seen. Rome will finally be placated as being the second on this count. This is my fear and also why I take the time that I do, to speak from a principled stand not partisan. I try to extend respect for those willing to take the time for discussion though I will admit that on occasion my patience for conclusion takes me from my desired path. The one point in which I readily and steadily put this respect aside for is when my point is presented dishonestly. Beat me with facts or logic and I will cede your point but portray my argument in way that meets your convenience and I will not stand for it. Admittedly this particular forum is controlled by our host RC, and I will give him kudos for allowing my post to stand and even though I feel he is being stubborn on logic, he has for the most part conducted himself in an honorable way. The exception to this being the post in which he tried to twist what my argument has been from the beginning. Perhaps I did react too severely and so I will offer my apologies.
ReplyDelete@RC, my apologies for making too hasty a condemnation for what I will admit was one misstep in a line of otherwise thoughtful comments. I appreciate you allowing my words to be represented here and I will restate my desire that we may further the level of discussion in this country by way of our own words here.
Brutus
ReplyDeleteHave we discussed Spiro Agnew before? He was born with dual citizenship, Greece and US. No one said a peep about Spiro and his Grecian citizenship. .
On your general argument: The dual citizenship disqualifier is such a fringe argument that it is hard to take seriously. I know you want the SCOTUS to rule absolutely and specifically. Of course, they did just that in Wong Kim Ark if you look at the case in depth. The lower court opinion said that if WKA was a citizen he was a natural born citizen eligible to be president. SCOTUS upheld that ruling.
This argument that natural born implies more than native born reminds me of my religious friends who argue over the minutia of the meaning of biblical verse even to the point of saying one version of the Bible is the only true translation. I have even heard it argued that the KJV version is the only "true" translation of the Bible because it is the 7th translation and that is god's favorite number.
RC; As to Agnew, I can't find for certain but it looks like another case of naturalization of the father before the birth of his child so it would be closer to the other two than Obama. I understand that you are still being dismissive of my logic, in tying the allegiance factor and quite frankly, I can't put it any clearer than I have already stated so once again I suppose we are at an impasse. Your comment about the scriptures and comparing what I have said to people using such arguments as “seven is God’s lucky number” stings of the exact disrespect I alluded to earlier. I feel I have shown the depth of my understanding on this subject and tried my absolute best to convey that understanding in a way that demonstrates step by step what I am questioning, why it matters, and how I believe it could be cleared up. This will be my last post, as I will not abide the disrespect you continue to show in response to what I consider the fair and respectful treatment I have offered you. Please do not misconstrue this as any kind of victory though; should you choose to leave these posts up, then I have no doubt that anyone reading can determine who comes from a position not laden with party loyalties and likewise should you decide to delete even one, you will know yourself who is that person.
ReplyDeleteSpiro Agnew was born in 1918. The 1920 census shows his father was not naturalized. Agnew therefore had dual citizenship at birth.
ReplyDeletehttp://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html
Getting back on topic....
ReplyDeleteI added a link at the end of the article to a new page The Fogbow has up debunking the social security number scandal that is the latest birther hope.