One more in the steady drip of information from the the US Government challenging Obama conspiracy theorists appeared on YouTube this past Friday. The White House has a YouTube Channel that includes a series called “West Wing Week” in which White House staffers show behind the scenes video footage and commentary (as of today there are 1273 videos on the channel). A new video includes a segment where a staffer opens the safe, pulls out the President’s US Passport, and flips through the pages.
According to the video, the President obtained a new US Passport when he became president. One will note that the document clearly shows Obama born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. In what may come as a surprise to a few readers here, the passport also indicates that Barack Obama is President of the United States!
I think the small area blurred in the image covers the issue and expiration dates. (There always has to be something hidden for the benefit of the conspiracy theorists.)
H/t to Reality Check, Miss Meh and mimi on PolitiJab and blackwaterdog at the Daily Kos.
“the US Government challenging Obama conspiracy theorists” – That sounds good.
The video of the President signing Justice Kagan’s paperwork was hilarious.
I think that it is clear from the cover, visible from 1:48 to 1:49 of the video, that the passport in question is Obama’s diplomatic passport, not his ordinary tourist passport. He probably has an odinary passport that would not have such an endorsement. (The birthers will undoubtedly argue that a diplomatic passport is not good enough and that we must see his ordinary passport.)
Based on the format of my own (ordinary) US passport, I believe that you are correct.
Given that the passport is a diplomatic passport to be used in Obama’s capacity as President, I think that we can assume that his current passport is set to expire on 20 January 2013. If he is re-elected, then he will presumably be issued with a new one that will be set to expire on 20 January 2017.
The Schengen entry and exit stamps on page 7 of Obama’s diplomatic passport, visible at 1:52 in the video, are in the same format that an American tourist would get on arriving or exiting the Schengen Zone at the same ports. The UK entry stamp is a bit different from that which an ordinary US citizen would receive on entering the United Kingdom. Where the stamp that the President received says “United Kingdom”, someone entering on an ordinary passport would receive a stamp that specifies the port of entry (such as “Heathrow (4)” for those arriving at Heathrow Terminal 4 or “Paris” for those receiving UK entry stamps at Gare du Nord immediately prior to boarding the Eurostar for London).
The President of the United States is apparently treated differently than the Queen of the United Kingdom, who does not require a passport for her international travel.
Poor Sven. There goes his “theory” about renunciation of nationality. The State Dept, which holds the records of such renunciations, does not issue passports to those that renounced their citizenship. Period. End of story.
See ya, Sven
Sven is insane. He lacks the ability to comprehend rationally. Hopefully, he won’t hurt anyone but himself.
i love how they cut off video before obama answered the question ” when did it sink in for you ?”. there is no way he can answer this question without the haters going nuts.
a): immediately = ” he was already prepared to start turning this country into a marxist muslim nirvana !!!”
b): a few days = ” even he couldn’t believe that his massive fraud was successful !!!”
c): it still hasn’t = ” because he knows he’s not eligible to be president !!!”
have you never seen friday the 13th ? halloween ? nightmare on elm street ?
” barry and the pirates ” will continue.
Oh, they’ll just say that Hillary’s State Department is in on the whole conspiracy. They’ll probably say that is the whole reason for her appointment, so that she could destroy the bad things & manufacture new stuff. You can never win with conspiracy nuts.
I read some of the comments on YT and some are already calling the Passport a fake.
Why would it be fake? Seems like an incomplete conspiracy theory. What motivation would a sitting US President have to show the world a fake Passport?
Nothing will satisfy them. Everything shown will be a fake. It only supports the argument that giving more information will not help. The only thing that will satisfy them is the removal of the President.
That reminds me of the claims by a friend to whom I showed my new passport a couple years ago that the format was such that it was not valid. He claimed that all biometric passports that did not have the data page at the back could not be valid. Given that the passport had been issued by the US Department of State, had a UK permanent residence visa placed in it by the British government, and was stamped for entry to and exit from France by French immigration officers, he seemed to have different notions as to what constituted a valid passport than the governments of three countries. (The list of countries that have accepted my current passport for entry and exit has since expanded to include Germany and Turkey.)
Similarly, the birthers have different notions of what constitutes a valid birth certificate and proof of citizenship than the Hawaii Department of Health and United States Department of State. I think that such state and federal authorities have rather more expertise in the matter.
1. Which passport did he use for travel to Pakistan in 1981?
2. Where is the original birth certificate – the one that will confirm Kapiolani as his birthplace?
3. Dr. C, are they still working on the response for your FOIA request for Stanley Ann’s passports?
1. your mother’s
2: in outer space
3: (Majel Barrett voice) “working… working… working…”
I want to know how an eastern European spy can become a naturalized citizen.
You should know better than to think that a conspiracy theorist would be dissuaded by inconvenient facts…
Even if Obama had travelled on a passport other than a US passport, we have to ask what the consequence of using a foreign passport to enter a foreign country would have been in 1981. Well, let’s see what the State Department has put on the web site of the US Embassy in London:
By the way, the ruling in the 1980s that is referenced above happens to be Vance v. Terrazas, which was decided on 15 January 1980.
Thus, your question is irrelevant. Even if it were relevant, there is no foundation to presuppose that Obama was likely to have held a foreign passport in 1981 or at any other time.
That’s an easy one. Like all original Hawaiian birth records, it is in the archives of the Hawaii Department of Health.
The Hawaii Department of Health states that they do not issue certified copies today in any format other than certified abstract copies. If you believe that this is not their current practice, then please provide a link to an image of a certified photocopy issued by the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 or any year since then.
I don’t know the answer, but it has become irrelevant. We have seen the response given to a FOIA request that is at least as expansive.
I asked in my FOIA request for records of passports issued to Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro. I have been told that the passport section is still working on it, and that it has gone for legal review two times. Assuming for a minute that the Department of State FOIA office operates with some minimal degree of efficiency, the fact that I do not have my results suggests that there is something more to the response than what Strunk got. (Strunk asked for passport applications.)
1. Question is not irrelevant unless you want to argue that a dual citizen is eligible for US presidency.
2. We know that DoH lied about birth index data – there is no need to cover for Obama if he had a legitimate original birh certificate consistent with the official birthplace story.
3. The response given included a statement that records have been destroyed for her passport application in 1965.
Dr. C’s FOIA cannot be answered in such fashion.
1. There is no argument and you’re not an authority on anything other than baseless speculation and FUD trolling.
2. No, but we do know that you’ve been caught lying many, many times. Nixon had more credibility than you.
3. Irrelevant like your trolling.
“Poor Sven. There goes his “theory” about renunciation of nationality. The State Dept, which holds the records of such renunciations, does not issue passports to those that renounced their citizenship.”
A natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen is qualified to receive a Diplomatic Passport, which was the one displayed by the WH.
A natural-born citizen uses his/her birth certificate issued by the State where they were born to verify US citizenship. A naturalized citizen uses a Certificate of Naturalization to prove US Citizenship.
A person born overseas with US parents (like McCain) does not have a birth certificate issued by any US State vital records department. Consequently, they are issued a Certificate of Citizenship to verify US Citizenship.
Which document did Obama use to verify his citizenship for his Diplomatic Passport?
Same scenario for his Soc Security Application, except a Permanent Resident is also qualified for a Soc Security Number. Which document did Obama use to verify citizenship or Legal Residency for his Soc Security Number?
I know. You’re a moron. He has a passport, so he’s qualified to be President.
I was born in New York State, Both of my parents were U.S. citizens at the time of my birth. Pursuant to your two-citizen parents argument, that automatically makes me a natural-born citizen.
My paternal grandmother was born in Ireland. Under Irish law, I am therefore eligible to become a citizen of Ireland.
If I were to become an Irish citizen, and do not renounce my U.S. citizenship, would I no longer be a natural-born citizen? If you believe that it would cause me to lose my natural-born citizen status, please cite the legal precedents your are relying upon.
As I have stated before, assuming that dual nationality renders someone ineligible assumes that each and every foreign government has the ability to render anyone and everyone ineligible for the Presidency of the United States. If your theory is correct, let’s pray that Kim Jung Il does not decree that anyone who has ever held US citizenship is deemed to be a citizen of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the moment of birth and forbidden from relinquishing their DPRK citizenship.
While we are on the topic, would you care to clear up my question as to what constitutes a foreign state for the purposes of your theory? Do we treat citizenship of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Republic of South Ossetia, or the Sovereign Military Order of Malta as rendering someone a national of a foreign state?
Exactly what have they stated that is dishonest? Furthermore, what has the Hawaii Department of Health said or done in relation to Barack Obama’s birth record that is inconsistent with their statements and actions at the same time in relation to the birth records of other people born in Hawaii?
I suppose Obama is the only individual for whom the Hawaii Department of Health has bothered to issue a press release with regard to what birth records that hold and what related information that can confirm. This could be regarded as special treatment in response to an unusual level of inquiry. However, you seem to suggest that they have released less information than they would about other individuals. If this is the case, then please inform us about the individuals born in Hawaii for whom birth information released in 2007 or later has been more forthcoming in response to third party queries.
As Dr C’s request for asked for records of passport issuance rather than application forms, I suppose the State Department might be capable of responding in relation to any passports issued in 1965 or earlier if they have retained the record of the numbers and dates of issuance of such passports, even if the application forms are no long maintained. Therefore, I acknowledge that you may be correct that there is a bit more information about passport issuance that we have not yet seen. It suppose that is also possible that the records on issuance were destroyed when the application records were, but we will have to wait and see.
I do. Prove the contrary.
His previous passport. Which said he was born in Honolulu. Someone born in the US cannot be a naturalized citizen.
His passport says he was born in the US, so, yes.
By the way, if you read the original intent of natural born citizen clause, it was to exclude European royalty who would come here specifically with the intent of taking power and ruling here as a king. Anyone else is OK by me.
I think that it is more likely that he used the Certification of Live Birth whose image we have seen online.
Although those who renew their ordinary passports need only submit an earlier passports as evidence of citizenship, the web site of the US Embassy in Baghdad indicates that everyone who applies for an official or diplomatic passport must supply, “original proof of citizenship or certified copy (e.g. U.S. birth certificate, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or Certificate of Citizenship)”.
As has been noted here many times, a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth is considered a certified copy of the original record under Hawaii law and meets State Department standards to be treated as such. For this reason, I believe that Obama probably proved his birth in the United States once again when he became President and applied for a diplomatic passport just as he did when he applied for his first ordinary passport.
For the record, Obama lost citizenship in the United Kingdom and Colonies when Kenya became an independent republic when Obama was about 3 years old and Obama lost Kenyan citizenship at age 21 but he had two years to decide which citizenship he wanted to retain (Kenya did not accept dual citizens). When Obama did not elect to become a citizen of Kenya on his 23rd birthday (August 4, 1984), he lost Kenyan citizenship.
There is no law in the US Code and no decision by the US Supreme Court which says that a person born in the US who had citizenship in other nations earlier in their life stops being a natural born US citizen.
In fact there are Supreme Court decisions that say just the opposite.
Since there is no Certificate of Naturalization on file for Barack Hussein Obama II and he also does not have a Certificate of Citizenship, by default, he used his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth to get his original US Passport and his Presidential Diplomatic Passport is based on the citizen passport.
Both a Certificate of Naturalization and a Certificate of Citizenship would show up in a Freedom of Information Act request.
An ad I saw on craigslist earlier:
Strong workers to help move goalposts. Could turn into permanent full-time job. Ask for Sven or nc1.
wow !!!!! welcome back nc1. this is why i love you so.
we went over this point our last conversation ( or parts of semi-recent multiple posts to be exact. ). a recap breakdown:
– you claimed there was a ban on US travel to pakistan.
it was shown, without a doubt from either of us, that this ban never existed.
– you countered that it would have been unwise ( or unpleasant or more difficult or ???, i can’t remember the exact wording ) to travel to pakistan on a US passport. so we looked into what other passports/citizenship obama could have had.
– indonesian: age 6
this got shot down quickly . the “super genius” theory. not a good one.
i looked into this. by indonesian law: at 18years old ( unless married ) you would need 5years consecutive residence ( obama had 4 ) or 10 years non-consecutive ( obama had ….. 4 ). these were the requirements to APPLY for indonesian citizenship. not receive . apply.
for an indonesian passport you need indonesian citizenship.
It’s always birther groundhog day, where they celebrate the zombie birther lies that never die!
The radical birfers believe that what counts is the situation at birth. Any citizenship got later does not count. Neither does loss of the foreign citizenship later in life lead to a re-birth as NBC.
That this causes problems for Eisenhower and Agnew (apart from Arthur and Curtis) does not seem to bother them in the least. I suppose the argument would be Agnew and Arthur were corrupt anyway and hid it, Eisenhower is absoved because the direct ancestor whom he inherited German citizenship from, arrived in Ameica before the foundation of the USA and Curtis – come on, whoever heard of Curtis?
huh. interesting question. dunno. lets apply it to all previous presidents during their term.
2. Hawaii Department of Health
3. Was released
Wow. That wasn’t painful.
Ooops… Well it looks like we have a little more time to wait.
Obama lost his Citizenship of the UK and Colonies when he because a citizen of Kenya. However, he retained the status as “British subject” or “commonwealth citizen” until his 23rd birthday when he also lost his Kenyan citizenship. It remains an open question whether President Obama was aware of either of these citizenships before he lost them. For details, see:
What do you mean? He’s one of the greats.
People Get Ready
Thanks for the update and the additional information!
It was wonderful to hear Curtis Mayfield again!
Let us now honor the great Stevie Wonder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc0XEw4m-3w&feature=related
FIFY. I occasionally correct spelling in comments, and today I corrected a couple of words. I hesitate to change valid words because there might be some bit of humor going on that’s over my head. Anyhow, if anyone wants me to never fix their typos, just say so.
1. His American one, as has been explained to you at least a hundred times.
2. Kapiolani Medical Center, as I PERSONALLY have told you at least fifty times.
3. Why do you care? You’ll simply refuse to believe the plain text, partly because you hate Obama and partly because your English skills are poor.
Same here. I’m also waiting for the proof that NC isn’t Orly Taitz, which I requested over a year ago.
I think it’s funnier if you spell it tipos.
But how do we know Orly Taitz isn’t Tammy Fae Baker’s evil mirror universe twin????
I think that a natural born citizen would be eligible even after receiving foreign citizenship as an adult – but (s)he would have to renounce the foreign citizenship before running for US presidency.
Few months ago I read about a lawsuit brought by a person with almost identical situation as you described. He accepted the Irish citizenship as an adult and did not want to renounce it when he was told that dual citizenship was not compatible with high level security clearance required for a sensitive US government job he tried to get promoted to. He lost the case.
There is no more sensitive position in the US government than Commander-in-Chief. If you cannot get a lower position because of dual citizenship, the CiC is out of question as well.
This still leaves the question open as to whether someone is a dual citizen at birth if the hypothetical North Korean nationality law applies retrospectively to the moment of birth of every US citizen. Additionally, such a North Korean law would unquestionably make each and every US citizen born after its passage a dual citizen at the moment of birth and ineligible for the Presidency if NC1’s theory is correct.
Are you arguing that every country has veto power over the U.S. chosing who can and cannot be President? Are you really willing to give up U.S. National Soverignity on choosing the President in such a way that every single country can completely cripple the U.S. Government by just making whoever is elected President a dual citizen, therefore making them ineligible for the Presidency?
Or are you saying that they only must not be a dual citizen at birth. If that is the case, then why should we allow someone who gains dual citizenship 1 day after birth to be President, but someone who loses their dual citizenship 1 day after birth to not be?
Furthermore, I think a lot of Italian-Americans (including Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito) that you do not think that they are American enough to be President. You should also inform Bobby Jindal.
What about countries that do not allow their citizens to renounce their nationality? (This question is not hypothetical, as there are countries that do not allow renunciations.)
Eligibility for a security clearance is defined by statute and/or regulations, not the US Constitution. Eligibility for the Presidency is decided by the constitution. What in the constitution excludes dual citizens from the Presidency or excludes dual citizens from the category of being natural born?
He was eligible for Kenyan passport as an adult before his travel to Pakistan.
In this example I was talking about a conscious act of a natural born US citizen who chose the citizenship of another country as an ADULT.
Foreign law is irrelevant when it comes to eligibility of a natural born citizen (US born of citizen parents) who, as an adult, did not ask for foreign passport or foreign citizenship from the country of parental ancestors.
I don’t think that Jindal is a natural born citizen because his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Not an unquire argument. You fail to “see the forest through the tree.”
You have failed to provide proof that any American President was ever a dual citizen, but you do recognize that it is possible to renounce one’s citizenship. Why don’t you see the problem these two points do to your argument?
If any one running for the office of president was a dual citizen, they could easily renounce the non-American citizenship. Once they have your entire argument disappears. Why do you not understand this simple fact?
Yes, in the common cases foreign laws have no effect American citizenship by birth.
There are only two types of citizenship in American and all western democracies. Citizenship by birth, and naturalized as a citizen. American law is very clear on what makes a citizen by birth, that is a person born under the jurisdiction of America. This would exclude children of enemy forces and children of foreign diplomat for example.
Let base the information on the US Embassy in Canada.
(link not included)
A person must renounce their American citizen according to American law, other countries laws are different on this issue. So it seems that you are obviously wrong.
Weren’t you the same person who was arguing that Chester A. Author became an natural born citizen at 14 when his father became a citizen of American. Can’t keep track of your arguments can you.
Jindal is a natural born citizen, just like Obama.
it is a simple fact that there is no law preventing a dual citizen from being President of the US. None. However, any voter is free to not vote for a dual citizen if they see that as an issue. An individual is also free to propose such a law, but until it is in effect (and passes any court challenge), it has no legal weight.
Thomas Jefferson was a usurper? In addition to having accepted French citizenship as an adult, it was said of Jefferson he was far “too French” to be president.
And that’s the key point Doc. No law prevented citoyen Jefferson from running for President. On the other hand, no law prevented his opponents from raising that as a campaign issue.
Obama’s background was a POLITICAL issue during the campaign for those who wished to make it so. Those who continue to pretend there remains any legal issue are simply foolish.
‘Those are my principles, and if you do not like them, I have others.” Switching principles to suit the particular case your opponent last argued.
A few questions here:
a) what passport did D. Eisenhower use when visiting Europe as a young man? Europe was in turmoil, and a passport with a French stamp would have got you in trouble in Germany. And vice versa. Let us asay I believe he visited Britain and France with a US passport with the name “Dwight Eisenhower” on it. A very Anglo-Saxon Christian name. But what passport did he use in Germany? A German one? Or a US passport saying “David Eisenhower” (in order to sound Jewish so they would not conscript him into the German Imperial Army, as before Napoleon, Jews were not normally German citizens)? We do not know. Birfers, if you can prove Ike never had a German passport, please do. If you have proof Grant, Taft and the Roosevelts never had a French passport, please provide it.
b) when you are a Belgium-born young man of Turkish descent visiting Turkey on a holiday – it does not make any difference whether you became aBelgian at birth, by registration at 18 or by naturalization (possibly of your parents) – you run a very high risk of being conscripted into the Turkish Army or even of being thrown in jail as a deserter if it’s your first visit a long time after your 18th birthday. There is NO WAY OF RENOUNCING TURKISH CITIZENSHIP if you haven’t fulfilled your military service in Turkey yet. So, birfers – would a ‘dual citizen” of the USA and Turkey, born and bred in the USA have to renounce Turkish citizenship (meaning he would have to go to Turkey and do time in the army there) before he would be considered NBC? Security risk, much?
Time to change principles, again?
ok. so, are you abandoning the indonesian passport/citizenship theory?
could he have gotten a kenyan passport ? not sure. there is a kenyan consulate in los angeles today. don’t know if it was there in 1981. now the questions:
is there any evidence of obama ever having a kenyan passport?
what exactly made traveling to pakistan easier on a kenyan passport than a US passport ?
how would obtaining this passport affect his NBC status ?
Here’s one for you. Both of my parents are citizens of Poland. They immigrated to the US. They because citizens (although Poland does not recognize any reununciation of citizenship without approval of the president or Poland, which is almost never given). I was born in the US. Under Polish law, as the child of a citizen, I was born a citizen of Poland. My wife is a third generation American, with no other citizenship. Under Polish law, our daughter, as the child of a citizen of Poland, is automatically a citizen of Poland at birth. So are you claiming, under these facts, are you claiming that no descendants of Polish ancestry can ever be President of the United States?
Again, you’re changing your definition. First you say that it’s no dual citizenship. Well, there are situations out there where even if you’re born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents, you have dual citizenship. By saying that there is no dual citizenship, you’re putting the regulation of who can and cannot be President being vetoed by every single law.
For instance, Italy allows dual citizenship for life, and so does the U.S. citizenship. So, let’s get a situation.
Your grandfather immigrated from Italy, and had your father before he was a U.S. Citizen. Guess what. You’re a dual citizen, according to you, with dual loyalties to multiple countries.
Now, you’re changing the definition of Natural Born Citizen (again to one that isn’t supported constitutionally anywhere outside your head) to having two U.S. Citizen Parents. Well, there are also ways for someone who is born to 2 non-citizens to only have U.S. Citizenship, and have no divided loyalty.
I don’t think that someone who was born here, raised in America all his life, but born to someone who was Naturalized 1 day after he was born, is any more a threat to the office of the President than someone who, 1 day after he was born, was taken from the country, raised overseas, and only returned exactly 14 years before election. You’re saying that one of those (the person who was raised overseas) is a Natural Born Citizen, while the person who grew up in this country is not.
“nc1: I think that a natural born citizen would be eligible even after receiving foreign citizenship as an adult – but (s)he would have to renounce the foreign citizenship before running for US presidency.”
I haven’t found that part of the Constitution- could you point me to it?
I am not saying that such a thing might not be a good idea, but I think what you are suggesting has no basis in current law- certainly not the Constitution.
Why do birthers think that what a NBC is gets to be made up on the fly?
I will go even further- why do Birthers despise voters so much? Clearly the voters never agreed with(or had even heard of) the De Vattel fiction. We have to assume that voters are informed voters- why? Because our system rests upon the fiction that voters are all informed and capable of making complex decisions about our government and laws. If we entrust voters to vote on things, we have to assume also that they are doing so from a place of knowledge. If the voters voted for Obama, then they are saying that he was eligible in their minds- which would eliminate the De Vattel scenario completely.
I think that she is more likely to be related to Silvia Night. At the very least, she seems to be inspired by Silvia Night’s line, “I will sue you, and I will sue the competition, and you will all go to jail.”
It’s there. It’s just under a cloaking device as are her horns, scales and hooves. Moldavan alien technology.
Your argument makes no sense and is inherently inconsistent.
You have been claiming that Obama’s dual citizenship at birth makes him ineligible to be POTUS, despite the fact that he effectively renounced his foreign citizenship when he became an adult. His only ties to Kenya and Great Britain were accidents of birth, as he has never resided in either country nor has he shown any allegiance to either country.
I, on the other hand, choose to become a citizen of Ireland as an adult. In other words, I make a conscious, willful decision to become a dual citizen. Obama made no such decision. Yet you are fine with me being President if I renounce my dual citizenship, while you make no such allowance for Obama.
It seems to me that it is abundantly clear that a person who chooses dual citizenship as an adult is more likely to have conflicting loyalties than someone who had dual citizenship by virtue of his or her birth. Why can’t you see that?
Few months ago I read about a lawsuit brought by a person with almost identical situation as you described.He accepted the Irish citizenship as an adult and did not want to renounce it when he was told that dual citizenship was not compatible with high level security clearance required for a sensitive US government job he tried to get promoted to. He lost the case.There is no more sensitive position in the US government than Commander-in-Chief. If you cannot get a lower position because of dual citizenship, the CiC is out of question as well.
Apples and oranges, as others have pointed out. There is nothing in the Constitution which says that you have to hold a security clearance in order to be eligible to run for President. It is up to the voters to decide if a candidate should not be elected because of conflicting loyalties.
Besides, the U.S. government has no serious concerns about issuing security clearances to individuals who have dual citizenship by virtue of birth, but it has grave concerns about issuing security clearances to people who choose dual citizenship as adults.
11. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;
Once again, nc1 fails.
Yes, but can you prove that the spacing between the letters in that regulation have not be subtly altered since Obama took office.
A couple of artistic allusions come to mind:
And a perhaps less familiar allusion to Bernstein’s Mass:
They seem to have a real problem with majority rule. This statement does get bandied about a bit on anti-Obama sites, and even more on anti-government sites of any kind:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
The quote has been falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson. Important: It is a fake. Jefferson never said that, the earliest reference the Jefferson Library at Monticello can find is 2004 and its a bit much to ask Jefferson to come back from a 180 year old grave to support the right wing anarchists. See Jefferson Library on Mob Rule fake quote
Jefferson really said stuff like:
“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127
But since when do birthers pay allow facts to get in the way of a good lie?
No, I don’t. Come to think of it, I don’t know the name of the doctor who delivered me, either. I guess I’m in big trouble!
And then we have Cornelius Vanderbilt’s famous letter to two businessmen he believed had cheated him:
I would sue you, but the law is too slow. Instead I will ruin you.”
And he did.
Here’s one of my favorite George Harrison Songs:
You serve me
And I’ll serve you
Swing your partners, all get screwed
Bring your lawyer
And I’ll bring mine
Get together, and we could have
a bad time
It’s affidavit swearing time
Sign it on the dotted line
Hold your Bible in your hand
Now all that’s left is to
Find yourself a new band . . .
We’re gonna play the sue me, sue
We’re gonna play the sue me, sue
Hold the block on money flow
Move it into joint escrow
Court receiver, laughs, and thrills
But in the end we just pay those
lawyers theit bills
When you serve me
And I serve you
Swing your partners, all get screwed
Bring your lawyer
And I’ll bring mine
Get together, and we could have
a bad time
We’re gonna play the sue me, sue
I’m tired of playing the
Sue Me, Sue You Blues
The famous, “I read it somewhere,” case. Decided in the District Court of Imaginary Places, by Judge Whathisname.
If someone were to, I don’t know, use Google, one would find that the State Department does not consider Dual Citizenship to be automatically disqualifying to receive a security clearance:
Greg, why let the truth get in the way of a birther lie? I mean that is what they are all about…
Good find. Important to remember every time this security nonsense is branded about. I see it also includes this interesting passage:
“10. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign citizenship of a family member. This includes but is not limited to:
(1) possession of a current foreign passport;
(2) military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country; ”
As I supposed, the US government deems the security risk caused by military service for a foreign country as much higher than the mere possession of another citizenship because of birth. Meaning in the eyes of birfers like nc1, no person of Turkish descent (and like with Eisenhower, it does not matter whether it’s your father or your great-great-great-… grandfather that gave you Turkish citizenship) can ever be NBC or President of the USA – until Turkey changes its laws.
Same thing with other nationalities, where renouncing is near impossible – like Polish.
The same text also gives the following mitigating circumstance:
“(f) the vote in a foreign election was encouraged by the United States Government.”
This may actually refer to San Marino, where the “American” vote stopped the communists from gaining power until the Iron Curtain came down. But it also poses a question: if the NBC clause is about national security and keeping USA politics free from foreign influence, why does the US government actually encourage the opposite, NBC Americans intervening in foreign politics, knowing that it involves the risk of backfiring (what if it turns out that US citizens influenced the vote in a way unfriendly to US interests? – think radicalized minorities) or even of foreign governments trying to retaliate?
Could it be that the NBC clause was just a way to stop foreign monarchs from sending over a brilliant scion to take over the USA?
My wife was born in Mexico. Would anyone like to see her US passport?
Sure, were does it say she was born.
According to the FBI website, dual citizenship is not a bar but you have to be “willing to renounce foreign citizenship”
Given the lack of interest in foreign languages among native-born Americans, it would be virtually impossible to fill most linguist positions if you excluded anyone who might be entitled to other citizenships.
Greg; there have been too many times that I went to verify claims of birther, just to find them false. The tipping was that the claim was just unbelievable. It is amazing how much misinformation a birther can in one paragraph.
My current bee-in-the-bonnet is the purported quote from Thomas Jefferson that says:
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.
As far as the folks at the Jefferson Library can figure out, this is really a quote from Ken Schoolland from a book of his in 2004. (See Jefferson Encyclopedia
The tip that it is false is, as you say, the complete unbelievability of the remark. It is the exact opposite of everything Jefferson stood for.
Schoolland is apparently a Libertarian from Hawai’i (I wonder if there is any connection there) but I haven’t researched him much yet. He is clearly a coward who does not have enough faith in his own political beliefs to claim them as his own; he has to somehow try to convince people that the founding fathers were on his side.
The tactic is seemingly succeeding because I have found half a dozen quote sites on the web that repeat the quote, assigning it to Jefferson without any caveat what-so-ever. This is a text book example of the non-critical cut-and-paste loving idea that if you repeat it often enough and it becomes truth.
The motivation seems to be that Libertarians want to do away with majority rule ostensibly because it tramples minority rights; which means they want to promote minority rule because the only way to ensure minority rights is if the minority rules.
They seem to be getting away with it in the Senate where it seems to take a 60% majority to get permission to go to the toilet these days.
Which means, I guess, that a minority power elite is OK and that a Rupert Murdoch led oligarchy would be just fine by them.
They enter into arguments conflating “Democratic Party” with ‘democracy’ and “Republican Party” with ‘republicanism’. I have seen a YouTube that claims that the concept of majority rule is, in fact anarchy. The twisted contrasts between democracy and republic are endless. It is just weird.
This fake Jefferson quote seems to be the center point around which the entire ‘philosophy’ revolves, and this guy Ken Schoolland is too much of a philosophic coward to take responsibility for it.
Keith, it is at times hard not to laugh. America is a democratic republic, but there are people who utterly refuse to use democracy in describing America type of government. The reason is that they believe it is synonymous “Democratic Party”. It is all part of a false narrative. It seems that they want to murky English to spread their misinformation.
It always amazes me on people who don’t check citations on things they read. However, I would agree with you that it is more of people pushing their opinions as facts.
It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that “obama” has a US passport. A passport was issued to him AUTOMATICALLY when he became Senator. There were no background checks required or proof of citizenship required at that time, since he had been in the State Senate, then US Senate. It’s diplomatic. Vetting a Senator is never done. If they have redacted the date it was issued – that tells you everything. The new book: “Obama-Ineligible to Serve – Lies, Crimes and Deadly Ambition” is available at Amazon and other sellers–read it no matter what party you are affiliated with. It explains ALL the legal facts as to why Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE under the Constitution to be President.
Not a good advertisement for the book to get so many things wrong in one post, DTT.
are you going to stick around to debate this “common knowledge” or was this just a hit-and-run quickie to plug your self published book ?
You’re wrong and an enemy of the United States and our democracy.
“Demand The Truth” aka A. Citizen and A. Evitan
Doc, is peddling a book reason enough for banning?
You’re basing all this on what exactly? Background checks are performed pretty regularly by most employers for anyone looking to be hired. Many government jobs require background checks. I find it funny that you think somehow the US senate doesn’t require a background check nor that him being a state senator didn’t require it.
I’m letting Amazon know that I’m canceling my account if they’re going to sell anti-American diarrhea on their website.
I looked it up on Amazon. The authors are listed as “A. Citizen” and “A Evitan.” Such brave patriots who write a book and then hide behind pseudonyms! And not very good ones at that, “evitan” being backwards for “native.”
The book is #754,721 on Amazon’s best-seller list. It’s hard to imagine what could have sold fewer copies. The blurb promises that “Succinct analysis of important ineligibility lawsuits are offered, which present many alarming facts.” Amazing facts? Such as 0-72?
By the way, DTF, it should be “Succinct analyses of important ineligibility lawsuits are offered, which present many alarming facts” or “Succinct analysis of important ineligibility lawsuits is offered, which presents many alarming facts.” I know, good editors are hard to find, particularly in vanity publishing.
Actually that is factually wrong. Obama visited France while a student under a US passport. It’s common knowledge and was widely reported when he came here a couple of years ago.
I wouldn’t get worked up about the fact that they’re selling a book that’s full of hatred and nonsense. After all, they have been selling the Turner Diaries and Mein Kempf for some time.
All the more reason to shop elsewhere. And thanks and you’re right. I will still let them know it’s disturbing for them to fund future domestic terrorists.
“These people become more strange and unhinged as time go on…..”