The left likes to call it the “birther” issue. The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is. Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.
I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue. Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side. It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.
Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too.
Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him.
Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue. Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”
This issue does matter.
There are three variations on the eligibility issue. Two are based on undisputed facts. The third is in dispute.
The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight.
Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama. (See his website, Cashill.com). In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.
The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.
The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen. Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship. He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President.
What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues.
The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters. They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement. Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.
If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out. Obamacare is gone. The START treaty is gone. The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.
Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone. Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves. They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.
The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims. None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue. Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues. We can only hope.
What are the chances of success? Who knows?
Why do football teams run the flea flicker play? It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular. Why should conservatives all hope this works out? Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done. We get a do over.
You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.
The other side of Chris Christie.
Off topic: Really now, why would she do that?
Read about it on page 648.
From today's New Media Journal:
|Obama Signs Executive Order Submitting US to Global Economic Regulations|
|On May 1st, Pres. Obama signed an Executive Order which opens the door for the United States to give up economic and environmental sovereignty through the promotion of a single international regulatory system. This regulatory system would seek to globally streamline cooperation between nations for trade, environmental and legislative processes on the international stage. While the need for economic cooperation between nations is crucial, these agreements are normally facilitated between governments through individual trade agreements and not by a globally designated regulatory body.|
Further reference to Obama's May 1, 2012 EO.
How is it possible for Obama to sign a new Executive Order almost daily without Congress being involved? Isn't the the constitutional law? He cannot pass anything with the approval of Congress. He can't spend money with approval by Congress. Yet they are all sitting on their hands--doing nothing! Maybe it is our Congress that is trying to destroy our Constitution and our country with Obama's help?
I think the obvious answer is that We the People let all the incumbents know that because they are not supporting our Constitution, they will all be voted out during the election if not sooner. Then maybe they will start working for We the People.
In the United States, an executive order is an order or directive issued by the head of the executive branch at some level of government. The term executive order is most commonly applied to orders issued by the President, who is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's governor or at the local level by the city's mayor.
U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.
In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders in council.
Basis in US Constitution
US presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.
Other types of orders issued by 'the Executive' are generally classified simply as administrative orders rather than Executive Orders. These are typically the following:
Presidential directives are considered a form of executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of a major agency or department found within the Executive branch of government. Some types of Directives are the following:
National Security Directives
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (presidential decision directives) History and use
Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."
Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.
Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.
Executive Order 13233, which restricted public access to the papers of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was more recently criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it "violates both the spirit and letter of existing US law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC. 2201–07," and adding that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation."
President Obama revoked Executive Order 13233 and replaced it with Executive Order 13489, which continued to restrict access to presidential records.
It is quite common for presidents to issue executive orders that instruct federal agencies to enact administrative regulations in order to circumvent the legislative process altogether, though, as alluded to above, this can violate the constitution in a number of ways. Presidents are quite aware that congressional politics can defeat or otherwise prevent the passage of legislation presidents deem politically important. In this regard, US Presidents have issued executive orders calling upon federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to amend administrative regulations where the political process of adopting new congressional legislation necessary to implement multilateral environmental regulatory treaty obligations a president wishes for the US to assume would prevent US ratification of/accession to that treaty.
I just found out something I never heard about before. FDR being born in Canada and if I did, I forgot. I was researching something else when I came across a Congressional entry from years ago but after FDR died, that FDR was born at Campobello, New Brunswick, Canada. So I did a little search and came up with this blog:
"The junior FDR was born at his parents’ summer home on Campobello Island, New
Brunswick, Canada. Natural Born Citizen, supra note 115; Chalmers M. Roberts, FDR’s Foes Are Laying for ‘Junior,’ WASH. POST, May 29, 1949, at B1 (In a discussion with friends about his eligibility for the presidency in light of his birth in Canada, he remarked, “I’d like to see anyone use that against me!”)."
The source - Seymore, Malinda L., The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 927 (2005)
I'm going to look for this book and the 1949 Washington Post article.
I just did a search of Malinda L. Seymore and she wanted to amend the Constitution to include all citizens to be eligible for the Presidency. I read a paper of hers that quoted the above excerpt.
I can't find it on the Way Back Machine and did a regular search on FDR being born in Canada. But it must have been talked about in various circles at the time of his Presidency.
Good work, Janet!
Who knows what other surprising facts will turn up next?
Janet thanks for the reference.
This subject has been thoroughly researched. Chester A Arthur is alleged to have been born in Canada. Common knowledge states that FDR was born in Hyde Park, New York. Anything is possible, but my guess is that this story is more of an effort to legitimize Obama.