Alan Keyes Tells Us Why He Questions Obama's [the Kenyan's] Presidency

Essence ^ | 11/21/08 | Cynthia Gordy

[solfour]

The Constitution requires that, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen of the United States. Conservative Alan Keyes-who ran against President-elect Barack Obama in the 2004 race for the Illinois Senate, and in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (Keyes ran on the American Independent Party ticket)-is challenging whether that is the case for our new president. In November, Keyes filed a lawsuit against Obama, the California secretary of state, and others, to stop California from giving its electoral votes to Obama until a birth certificate is produced proving that he is indeed a natural born citizen. ESSENCE.com talked to Keyes about where he thinks Obama was born, why he questions the birth records already provided, and if this whole lawsuit is just an overblown case of sour grapes.

ESSENCE.COM: What exactly do you want to accomplish with this lawsuit?

... snip ...

The reason an issue has been raised about Obama is because of the simple question, which can be answered with a birth certificate that shows he was born in the United States, or born to parents who had the capacity to transmit U.S. citizenship. When the question was asked, he danced around it. If the most important office of the federal government can be occupied by someone who is not qualified under the United States Constitution, that destroys the authority of the Constitution. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with in a clear, straightforward way. Eventually the case will get to the Supreme Court, establish the facts, and clear the air. It's really all very simple.

[El Gato]

I think his father already had two or three wives back in Kenya.

Just one at the time. Stanley was #2, Ruth (also a "white" American), and there was reportedly a third. However he wasn't married to all of them at the same time. IIRC, never more than two at a time. Legal in Kenya.

[El Gato]

I think you are mistaken, as I was told at the time of his birth that being born on an American military installation makes it "American soil", and only the Father needed to be a citizen of the US to make the child a Natual born citizen

The "American soil" part is actually not correct. If it were, your son would not also have a German BC. However it doesn't matter, you were a citizen, and presumably had at least 5 years of US residency after your 14th birthday (including military time, no matter where stationed) at the time of his birth. If he was born after the law changed, it would only be 2 years.(Obama was born well before the change).

For example if some local woman who works on the base, manages to have a baby in the Enlisted barracks, the baby is not a US Citizen, unless the father is a US Citizen eligible to pass on citizenship and he acknowledges paternity, same as if the baby had been born in the hospital "in town".

This is, BTW, the reason it doesn't matter if McCain were born on the Naval base, or as it seems he was, in the hospital in Colon, Republic of Panama. BOTH his parents were so eligible, under the then existing law. There are some special cases for citizens of the US living in the Canal Zone, or there were, but they weren't passed until shortly after his birth, and wouldn't have directly applied to him anyway, since he met the broader criteria.

[Canadian Outrage]

If this travesty is allowed to stand, then your country will be hosed for a lot longer than 4 years. Once you undermine the Constitution to this degree and let it go, your done. The precedent has been set and the damage will have been done!! CO

[El Gato]

Maybe if he never talked that would have worked out.

I have known folks whose families have lived in Wisconsin and Texas for multiple generations, yet have pretty much the same "accent" that The Governator has.

[El Gato]

I don't care what you do. I'm concerned about what the law requires, and I expect Obama to meet the very same requirements for establishing his eligibility that every other presidential candidate has. Which he has done. If there was a law requiring him to present his birth certificate to you or anyone else then I'd support that too. But there isn't.

This situation has not come up before, AFAIK. It's being handled as a civil matter, not a criminal one. Individuals are alleging injury in fact, and seeking redress from the courts. Nothing unusual about that.

It's unusual for a state court to override election officials, but that happened in Florida in 2000. That too was a civil, rather than a criminal matter.

Until then, Obama is under no requirements to do so.

True, but if has nothing to hide, it would be in his interest, and as Mr. Keyes points out, that of the nation, for him to do so.

[El Gato]

This bill clarifies that the term “natural born Citizen”

What bill? You've given quotes from something, which appears to a be summary rather than legal language. But giving the source of the quote, or the section of the law created by the bill would be useful.

[wideminded]

I actually know someone who applied to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and was accepted. Not only that but somewhere I have some of her original application materials.

Apparently, before statehood, not everyone born in Hawaii had a birth certificate on file. According to the Keyes suit, between 1959 and 1972 the state issued special documents of birth on the testimony of one person. Perhaps my acquaintance had to get one of these. I'll see if I can dig up that file.

[Non-Sequitur]

It's being handled as a civil matter, not a criminal one. Individuals are alleging injury in fact, and seeking redress from the courts.

And since they can't actually point to an injury in fact they are failing to establish legal standing to sue. I know all that.

True, but if has nothing to hide, it would be in his interest, and as Mr. Keyes points out, that of the nation, for him to do so.

Why? For him do do so would be to publicly admit the documents he provided earlier are not sufficient, and that the word of the Hawiian officials is not sufficient. No politician is going to voluntarily admit that.

[FrankR]

I normally don't submit to being grilled by anyone I don't know, especially when they are gilling me about citizenship and their name starts with "el"....senior.

It is really compassionate to you to worry about the status of my children - who are both "Natural Born Citizens" of the USA. Oh, my daughter was born in Conyers, Georgia...adn you're questioning HER citizenship?

I kinda get the feeling your are playing "nah-nah-nah-nah-naaahhhhhh-nah", and if your guy's citizenship is questioned then everyone's is...how utterly childish.

But, I want to put this to rest for me, and the zillion other veterans who have had a child born while stationed overseas.

Below is the statute that certifies his citizenship, which is a totally different situation than your boy Barry.

BTW - I'm not going to spend any more of my time debating your about that, because:
a) It doesn't make any difference anyhow, and,
b) It's none of your business.

Have a nice dayyyyyy.

---

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401Prev | Next § 1401.

Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person


     (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

     (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

[El Gato]

Thanks for the referance, that's all I wanted. It was a request, not a grilling. It's just that I do not like to use or cite information, particularly about the law, from an unknown source.

However, if you read what you posted closely you'll see that sub-sections (A) and (B) to section (g), only serve to define cases were living outside the US counts as living in the US for parental residency purposes, not as special exemptions to the other rules.

Thus except for that aspect of parental residency requirements, people in the Armed Forces, and their children living with them, as well as the similar cases in (B), are treated no differently than anyone else.

Thus the children of a legal US resident alien who was also a member of the US Armed forces (there are many), would not be US citizens if born on a US military base abroad, but those of a US Citizen, who also met the residency requirements (Much easier now than when Obama was born, since it now only requires 2 years of residency after the 14th birthday) would be.

Oh it's "Señor", not "Senior", and I have no known Hispanic ancestry. There is a slight possibility that my maternal paternal great-grandfather was Spanish, his name being "Guy Carlos", although French is a bit more likely, but we really don't know. Otherwise, lots of German (Kunz) and lots of Brit (Harrison & Lee). But both my Grandfathers were orphans, one of completely unknown origin, the other (Guy Carlos) we know a little about on his mothers side, and next to nothing on his father's side.

[El Gato]

If it does, I'll probably disagree because they could come over, have the baby, have it documented as a "natural born" citizen, then go back to Mexico and raise it. I think the founders had in mind that to be President you need to be born and raised here so as to know our culture, customs and beliefs in liberty.

I don't *know* either, and in fact I don't think anyone does Because the distinction between citizen and natural born citizen is rarely important, and thus has not been adjudicated. In fact the only case that I know of is eligibility to the office of President.

However getting "Yankee White" clearance to work in the Presidential Support Activities", almost requires it, and more. To get Yankee White clearance, you cannot have "Immediate family are citizens of another country. Immediate family under this Instruction includes spouse, offspring, living parents, brothers, sisters, or other relatives or persons to whom the individual is closely linked by affection or obligation". IOW Obama could not get such a clearance. This requirement is waivable, but it must be shown that: "family members are not subject to physical, mental, or other forms of duress by a foreign power", and his Kenyan relatives hardly qualify, since his "cousin" Raila Odinga pretty much is an oppressive "foreign power".

[El Gato]

And? The state of Hawaii has said they have his original birth certificate on file.

But they have not said, and cannot say except under very restrictive circumstances provided for by law, what the BC says about where he was born. "Where" meaning what hospital, in what city of what country. It's quite possible for someone not born in Hawaii to have a birth certificate on file with the state of Hawaii, so there having it proves nothing.

[El Gato]

there is not a single bit of solid evidence that Obama was born outside the U.S. No documents. No affidavits,

But there are recorded oral statements to that effect from his Kenyan relatives in position to know, if he had been born in Kenya. Also the statement,also recorded, of the Kenyan Ambassador to the US. That was later disavowed, claiming he was "misquoted", but like I said, it was recorded oral statement, with no "quoting" required. But in disavowing it, he also verified that he was the one who made it, not some actor pretending to be him.

But one does not need "solid evidence" to request more evidence, only a "probable cause to believe"

[El Gato]

Why? For him do do so would be to publicly admit the documents he provided earlier are not sufficient, and that the word of the Hawiian officials is not sufficient. No politician is going to voluntarily admit that.

The Hawaiian officials made no statement other than "we have a birth certificate on file". They did not indicate its contents. He would not be admitting that the documents were not sufficient, although they aren't, unless provided directly to a court or other neutral observers. He could just say he "wanted to clear the air". It would gain him brownie points, not cost him any.

[El Gato]

IMO. She got knocked up, and Barry H is the result.

There is no question about that. The purported date of the marriage is well under 9 months before the purported date of the birth.

[El Gato]

Here’s an even more compelling video by a guy who looked a HEX Editor of the Obama image file, where it’s clearly got “Photoshop” mod traces!!!

I believe one can use photoshop to acquire an image (as from a scanner). That could be the source of the "Photoshop" (on a Mac no less) information inside the metadata of the image. Or maybe not. It wouldn't be my first choice, and you can scan in images with cheaper or free programs, including ones likely to come with a Mac or PC (such as "paint" on the PC). Still someone who deals with images a lot, like my wife, and had Photoshop, might choose to use it instead, based on familiarity and perceived ease of use.

[El Gato]

maternal paternal great-grandfather was Spanish, his name being "Guy Carlos",

Oops, it was my Maternal Grandfather that was Guy, I don't know his father's name and that is the difficulty.

[ModelBreaker]

“Once you undermine the Constitution to this degree and let it go, your done. The precedent has been set and the damage will have been done!”

Well, I think the principal breaching of the Constitution happened in the 1930’s under FDR. During the depression, the Supreme Court interpreted the commerce clasue so that Congress was no longer limited by the enumerated powers in the Constitution. It has been steadily downhill since then.

Then, in the 1970’s Roe vs Wade introduced a new brand of constitutional left-wing power—the ‘make it up and put it in the constitution’ approach.

These two breaches were far more consequential than is the BO birthplace issue. The only affect the BO birch issue will have is “Which left-wing president will refuse to control an utterly out-of-control left-wing Congress?”

If I had to choose between fixing the commerce clause and letting BO be president, I would choose the commerce clause any day of the week. It’s not even close.

[Non-Sequitur]

But there are recorded oral statements to that effect from his Kenyan relatives in position to know, if he had been born in Kenya.

And as has been pointed out before, that affidavit on the interview, which was filed with Berg's case, is riddled with errors. The person who claims to have conducted the interview says it was done in Swahili, a language Obama's grandmother doesn't speak. It was also supposed to have been conducted in her home village, but the person making the affidavit got the name of the village wrong. How do you take it seriously when they can't even get the language and location correct? I'd hate to see that evidence in court. Obama's people would have a field day.

Also the statement,also recorded, of the Kenyan Ambassador to the US. That was later disavowed, claiming he was "misquoted", but like I said, it was recorded oral statement, with no "quoting" required.

And nowhere in that recording does the ambassador specifically say that Obama was born there. He could just as easily been referring to Obama's ancestral home. Again, Obama's people could pick it to shreds.

But one does not need "solid evidence" to request more evidence, only a "probable cause to believe"

So where is it?

[Non-Sequitur]

The Hawaiian officials made no statement other than "we have a birth certificate on file". They did not indicate its contents. He would not be admitting that the documents were not sufficient, although they aren't, unless provided directly to a court or other neutral observers. He could just say he "wanted to clear the air". It would gain him brownie points, not cost him any.

Gain brownie points with who? Everyone who thinks he lying to begin with? Like he cares. His true supporters don't need any more brownie points.

Long and short is that without any solid evidence that he was born outside the U.S. then no court is going to force him to present his birth certificate.