Saturday, July 30, 2011

Obama’s Rape of the Fourteenth Amendment—From Defining a Natural Born Citizen to Authorizing His Threatened Dictatorial Raising of the Debt Ceiling

                                                              
Obama’s Rape of the Fourteenth Amendment—From Defining a Natural Born Citizen to Authorizing His Threatened Dictatorial Raising of the Debt Ceiling

                                                       By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              July 30, 2011

Reconstruction For putative President, Barack Obama, and his enablers, the Fourteenth Amendment is the gift that just keeps on giving. He has used it to impose legitimacy upon himself concerning the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen.” Now we see that he may again need the Fourteenth Amendment to carry out his plans. While White House spokesman, Jay Carney, has reportedly ruled out such use, Obama may in the end seek to use it to impose a higher debt ceiling on the American people without any Congressional say.

                                                         The Natural Born Citizen Clause

We have seen the argument put forth by Obama’s camp that the Fourteenth Amendment makes him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They maintain that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” was confirmed or changed by the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649 (1898), a U.S. Supreme Court case that interpreted that amendment. They maintain that this amendment and Wong Kim Ark confirmed or established that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is based on the English common law and that it means any child born in the United States, even if born to one or two alien parents, and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They add that for children born in the United States, the citizenship of the parents is not relevant, unless the parents are ambassadors or members of invading armies. They proclaim that this territorial birthright citizenship is what a “natural born Citizen” is and that there is not need to satisfy any parental citizenship component. But the historical record and case law show that a reading of the Constitution to produce this definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not correct.

The Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution gave us both a "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States." These are separate and distinct terms which must be given a meaning of their own. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be President. Hence, the issue with Obama is whether he is a "natural born Citizen," not a "Citizen of the United States."

The U.S. Supreme Court has always defined a "natural born Citizen," an idiom and a term of art, as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is still the only definition of the term ever provided to us by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court has never given us any other definition. This American common law definition was confirmed in the precedential case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875), which dealt with the citizenship issue head on in order to determine whether Virginia Minor had the privilege to vote as a “citizen of the United States” under the Constitution, a privilege which she argued could not be denied to her by the State of Missouri under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court did ultimately hold that based on the history of voting in America, voting was not part of the privileges and immunities granted to citizens.  It therefore held that Minor did not have a constitutional right under the Constitution to vote and that the Missouri constitution and statute granting that right only to male citizens were not unconstitutional.  The Court did add that women probably should have the right to vote but that only Congress could rectify the matter, not the courts.  This part of the Minor case was later overruled by the Nineteenth Amendment which guaranteed women the right to vote. 

But the part of the Minor case that is more important and which still has precedential value has to do with citizenship.  Minor said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Id. at 167-68. Under Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which it borrowed from Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, at the time of birth, the child must be born in the United States to a father and mother who are both U.S. citizens either by birth or naturalization after birth. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Secs. 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”).

Also, Minor did not resolve the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States.” But the Minor Court explained that it knew what a “natural-born citizen” was. The Court had no doubts about that definition. It defined the term under natural law and the law of nations as codified by Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations. In fact, the Court took Vattel’s definition almost word for word. Including in the definition of a “natural-born citizen” a reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents, the Court clearly did not rely upon the English common law. What it did not decide and did not need to decide was the question of what is a “citizen of the United States.” Since Virginia Minor was a “native” or “natural-born citizen,” there was no need for Minor to address that issue and left it open to another day. This question of what is a “citizen of the United States” was addressed and answered in Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

A careful reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor that Court’s decision amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which the Founders and Framers relied upon when drafting that clause. Rather, the Court’s decision shows that under our Constitution, there are two different types of birthright citizenships. There is no indication in its text or in the history of its debates that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to or that it did in fact define or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Constitution makes a distinction between an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States" and a Fourteenth Amendment "born" "citizen of the United States." The Constitution provides for different birth circumstances for these two different classes of citizens upon whom it bestows birthright citizenship. These are therefore two different types of birthright citizenships.

In Article II, the Constitution demands the status of "natural born." In the Fourteenth Amendment, it demands "born" in the United States and "subject to its jurisdiction" at the time of birth. Only a child born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to citizen parents can be an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States." Minor v. Happersett (1875). In contradistinction, a child born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to one or two alien parents can under the Fourteenth Amendment be a "born" "citizen of the United States." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989).  It should be noted that Wong Kim Ark also added in its holding that the alien parents of the U.S.-born child were domiciled in the United States.  The Court felt that the fact of domicile gave the United States sufficient jurisdiction over the parents which at birth spilled over to the child. 

If Obama were born in Hawaii, a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove given the questionable authenticity of his long-form Certificate of Live Birth that he released on the internet on April 27, 2011, and if his parents are Barack H. Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham, who are reported to be his parents, he can at most be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) born “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

                                                                  The Debt Ceiling

Our nation is currently faced with a budgetary desperate situation. Simply put, our federal government over the last decade has spent greatly more money than it took in. Our federal government must continue its business. But it must reduce its spending and increase its revenue. Whether its spending reduction or revenue raising, both sides of the equation are tied to taxes. By reducing the mammoth size of our federal and state governments and their programs, we would be able to reduce our public expenditures and need for more tax revenues. Unfortunately, such choices probably will impact on the American way of life. An alternative that makes much more sense is to help our nation to get richer by putting into place forces which will increase the amount of money the nation makes and thereby allow the government to collect more taxes from current and new income sources without increasing taxes on any one segment of the population which in the end may just be counterproductive.

But Obama’s enablers and maybe even Obama himself want to take the fast and easy way out. Now we see Obama’s enablers and maybe even Obama himself in the future suggesting that he resort to the Fourteenth Amendment to impose his will upon the American people regarding raising their debt ceiling above the current 14 Trillion Dollars without the input or control of Congress.

In a news story entitled, Senate Quickly Kills Boehner Debt Bill, it is reported:

The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, ruled out more definitively than he had before the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the Fourteenth Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached. House Democratic leaders, former President Bill Clinton and some constitutional lawyers have said that Mr. Obama should, if necessary, invoke the amendment, which holds that “the validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned.”

“This administration does not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling. Congress has the authorities necessary to ensure that we meet our obligations,” Mr. Carney said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/us/politics/30fiscal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2.

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed during Reconstruction following the Civil War. Its purpose was to address the social, political, and economic problems that led up to and that resulted from that war. The debt clause was only to assure that debts incurred by the United States, including those resulting from that war, would be honored. The amendment sanctified the “public debt,” provided that it was “authorized by law.” It also made sure that neither the United States nor any State would pay any debt incurred by anyone in their effort to overthrow the government of the United States or suffered by anyone from his or her slaves being emancipated. It declared such debts, obligations, and claims illegal and void.

How would Obama expect to unilaterally raise the People’s debt ceiling without that debt being “authorized by law” (meaning Congressional approval) and consider it to be constitutionally valid under the Fourteenth Amendment? Note that the debt belongs to the People and not to their government. Only if our political and legal institutions were to again turn a blind eye to the Constitution could Obama get away with such unconstitutional behavior.

It is only expected that Obama and his handlers would again rape the Fourteenth Amendment for their purpose of maintaining political power and satisfying their self-ambitions. Here we see that he would dare override the authority and will of a co-equal branch of government, the legislature. Doing such an act would show that he has no respect for and attachment to Article I, Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the republican form of our government under which the People act through their elected representatives for the purpose of achieving the greater good.

Concerned Americans who questioned Obama’s eligibility to be President said early on that if Obama and his enablers were ready, willing, and able to turn a blind eye to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 regarding his eligibility to be President, they would do the same when it came to other important issues with which our nation may be faced in the future. Here, we again see how desperate people will get for the sake of maintaining power and showing the world that they are right.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 30, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen" Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)



        Morrison Remick Waite
7th Chief Justice of the United States


Obama  Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen"  Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

                                                        By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                  Originally Posted January 2, 2009
                                                Reposted at this Blog on July 10, 2011

I am posting to my blog an article on Minor v. Happersett that I wrote on January 2, 2009, before putative President Barack H. Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009, and which Robert Stevens posted at the web site of Attorney Orly Taitz on the same day. The article as originally written by me may be read at Ms. Taitz’s web site at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html.  The opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Morrison Remerick Waite.  I also cited and discussed the Minor case and its American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" in the case of Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), which I filed on January 20, 2009.  Probably the most important statement that any court made in all the Obama cases is that made by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in footnote 4 of its decision where it stated: “We need not discuss Appellants’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ . . . . That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” Hence, the Court never reached the merits of whether this American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" still prevails today and whether Obama meets this common law definition.  I have also cited and discussed the Minor decision in many of my essays which can be read on this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

I will be following up this post with another article on this precedential decision of our U.S. Supreme Court which relied upon natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law to define citizenship in our society and confirmed the natural law and law of nations definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which prevailed at the time of the founding and writing of our Constitution in 1787, a definition we can find in Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)Vattel and The Law of Nations were a political philosopher upon whom and treatise upon which the Founders and Framers heavily relied in the early years of our Republic.  This definition, which was incorporated into our American common law is a child born in the country to citizen parents which means a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother both of whom are either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States."  No constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court decision, or Congressional Act (not to imply that any such Act could) ever amended or abandoned this American common law definition and it still prevails today, even being confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).   

                                                          Friday, January 2, 2009

OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” UNDER MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) held that women, while being citizens of the U.S., do not have the right to vote under the Constitution. Of course, we know that this law was later repudiated. In discussing who are citizens of the United States and whether women may be such citizens, the Court explains that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite The Law of Nations, the Court goes into concepts which can be found in that treatise. The concepts of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in E. de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's wanting to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S.

The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. The Court then said the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).

Article II of the Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ." From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the "original citizens," those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. It is interesting to note that Jane Randolph Jefferson (1720-1776), President Thomas Jefferson’s mother, was born in the Tower Hamlets of Shadwell, a maritime neighborhood of London, England, and came to Virginia when she was young. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be "natural born Citizens" to be eligible to be President. We learn that "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . " make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, "natural born Citizen" under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a "Citizen" is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship.

Obama, while having his mother's U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father's, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a "natural born Citizen," even if he was born in Hawaii.

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009
Re-posted to this blog July 10, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Friday, July 8, 2011

Democratic National Committee Uses Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate for Fund Raising--A Huge Mistake

Fight Fraud - No Fraud


Democratic National Committee Uses Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate for Fund Raising--A Huge Mistake


                                                           By:  Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                    July 8, 2011
According to Dr. Conspiracy, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has recently mailed to voters a solicitation for political contributions for Obama’s re-election in 2012. See his web post entitled, Democrats Rub It In, here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/democrats-rub-it-in-2/. He lauds them for including in the solicitation letter a copy of Obama’s long-form Certificate of Live Birth which he released by posting an image of it on the internet on April 27, 2011.

The DNC letter is signed by DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The envelope to potential donors is stamped “HELP US COUNTER THE GOP’S DIRTY TRICKS.” A red-letter alert reads on the front of the envelope reads, “ENCLOSED: President Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate.” Recipients will find a copy of the official State of Hawaii “Certificate of Live Birth.” Ms. Schultz’s letter describes Republicans as “the masters of dirty politics.” She adds: “Some even went as far as to join the ‘birthers’ in their effort to throw doubt upon President Obama’s birthplace.” Donors who send at least $44.00 are promised a “Made in the USA” Obama coffee cup with a copy of the birth certificate printed on the side. See a July 7, 2011 CBS article that promotes this latest DNC stunt entitled, Birther issue resurfaces, but now Democrats are the ones raising it,” at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077587-503544.html.

Dr. Conspiracy in his web article says: “Is it payback time? More accurately it’s ‘pay up’ time because the letter is just another typical fundraising letter. Get the donor angry, and ask them for $44.”

Apart from the lie that the Obama eligibility issue is a “GOP dirty trick” given that Attorney Philip J. Berg, a life-long party Democrat, was the first person to file a law suit against Obama contending that his birth certificate was a forgery and that Obama had perpetrated the biggest fraud in the history of the U.S., and that the Democrats first challenged McCain’s eligibility to be President before anyone challenged Obama’s, what Dr. Conspiracy and the DNC fail to understand is that the DNC has committed a monumental mistake. They are soliciting from the public political contributions based on a forged government document. This is clearly fraud of great proportions. We have seen countless expert reports (including from world-renowned computer and software expert, Mara Zebest, and according to retired Major General Paul E. Valleley, even from former CIA officers) that the April 27, 2011 birth certificate image is a forgery. We have not seen one credible response to this plethora of experts who have convincingly shown that Obama on-line Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. Private citizens should immediately report this great fraud, including CBS’s aiding and abetting of it (note CBS derides the “birthers” and does not report on all the evidence showing that the birth certificate is a fraud), to their local FBI offices and to the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission, the FBI, and Attorney Generals across the nation should immediately step in to protect voters and consumers of the United States and of their respective states. Since the birth certificate document is being used as a motivation for voters and consumers to give their money for this political cause, these law enforcement officials should honor their oaths to enforce the law and verify that the birth certificate document is in fact genuine. So now that the DNC has let the cat out of the bag, let them provide the proof that the document that they are using to extract money out of the public is in fact genuine or at least show that even if it is a forgery, that the information it represents to be true is in fact true.

Should these law enforcement officials continue to disappoint us and not take any action, then private citizens, who should not let the fear of ridicule silence them, can also file legal actions in their respective states for an injunction against such fraudulent fundraising activities. During the legal proceedings, surely the defendants will be compelled to prove that the birth certificate document is in fact genuine or if a forgery that it at least conveys accurate information regarding Obama’s place of birth.

And let us not forget that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he is still not eligible to be President. A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212-217 (1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (to name just a few sources). It is reported that Obama was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama. While his mother was a U.S. citizen, Obama Sr. was a British citizen and never a U.S. domiciliary or legal permanent resident let alone a U.S. citizen. Obama himself was also born a British citizen. Under such birth circumstances he can be a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen who can be born with dual and conflicting allegiances and loyalties. But he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for a “natural born Citizen” is born only subject to the allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States and as such is born with no political, military, legal, or moral obligations to any foreign power nor can any foreign power expect any. How convenient that the CBS article does not tell us anything about that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 8, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Thursday, July 7, 2011

The Boston Globe Kept Obama Newsworthy Information Secret and the Immigration Service Released Two Different Obama Sr. Immigration Files

The Boston Globe Kept Obama Newsworthy Information Secret and the Immigration Service Released Two Different Obama Sr. Immigration Files


By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 7, 2011

On July 7, 2011, Sally Jacobs published her story in the Boston Globe entitled, Father Spoke of Having Obama Adopted. The story can be read at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/07/father_spoke_of_having_obama_adopted/.

What is rather revealing in Sally Jacobs’ story is what she says about Barack H. Obama Sr. speaking about having Obama Jr. possibly being adopted. What is so revealing is not so much what Obama Sr. said but rather that this information is coming out just now.

Here is what Ms. Jacobs wrote:

“‘Subject got his USC wife ‘Hapai’ [Hawaiian for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away,’ according to a memo describing the conversation with Obama written by Lyle H. Dahling, an administrator in the Honolulu office of what was then called the US Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Obama, the Subject, and his USC, or United States citizen, wife, obviously, did not put their baby up for adoption. Whether the young couple actually considered such a step, or the elder Obama made the story up in order to appease immigration officials who at the time were considering his request for an extension of his stay in the United States, is unclear. Family members on both sides of the marriage now say they never heard any mention of adoption.

But his statement provides a unique glimpse into the relationship between the president’s parents and the fragility of his connection to the father whom he would little know.

Dahling’s memo, dated April 12, 1961, is one of dozens of documents in the elder Obama’s ‘alien’ file released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made in the course of research on a biography of Obama’s father. Obama was visiting the United States on a foreign student visa which required him to apply for an annual extension of his stay during the five years he was attending US colleges.

The memo advised that officials should continue to monitor the senior Obama’s personal life, and raised concerns about his behavior, noting that the previous summer he had been warned about his ‘playboy ways.’’’

The Boston Globe first obtained the INS file under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2009. For some unknown reason, it never released that file to the public. See the story at http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2011/04/journalism-fail-boston-globe-reporter.html  and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2712804/posts . 

The Boston Globe wrote a story on the Obama Sr. immigration file on April 29, 2011. See the story here http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-29/yourtown/29488020_1_ins-documents-elder-obama-memo .  It is safe to speculate that Ms. Jacobs wrote her story because on April 27, 2011, another newspaper had also obtained the same file and released it to the public. What is odd is that in this story written by the same Sally Jacobs, there is no mention of the Dahling memo. The adoption story surely was newsworthy but there is no mention of it in her story.

On April 27, 2011, the Obama Sr. INS file was also released by the Arizona Independent who also obtained the file under a FOIA request by staff writer, Heather Smathers. This second file was also published on the internet. That file can be accessed and read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File . 

The Arizona Independent was not too happy about the Boston Globe keeping the Obama Sr. immigration file a secret from 2009. Its Managing Editor, Brian Wedemeyer, published a story on it on April 30, 2011, raising the ethical question of whether journalists should sit on newsworthy stories for the sake of writing a money-generating book about it at some later time. See his commentary here http://www.az-independent.com/2011/04/30/commentary-boston-globes-big-secret/ . 

A close look at the Arizona Independent file shows that the Dahling memo found in the Boston Globe file regarding the proposed adoption is not contained in the Arizona Independent file. The question then becomes why would someone remove such a document from an official government file, causing the Arizona Independent not to receive a copy of it? Other questions are why did the Boston Globe not release the INS file since acquiring it in 2009 and not reveal the Dahling memo until now? What is it about the Dahling memo that someone did not want the public to know about it? An investigation needs to be done regarding this Dahling memo and breach of a government immigration file. Another investigation should be done into journalistic ethics and a newspaper’s duty to report the news to the public.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 7, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved