Dawood Khan's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

Obama is a Citizen and eligible for the Presidency

In Politics, Quotes, thinking out loud, Useful Information on June 18, 2010 at 12:01 am

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Lolo_Soetoro_Ann_Dunham_Maya_Soetoro-Ng_Barack_Obama.jpg

If Obama’s Mother was a US citizen, then it matters not one iota where Obama was born.

Was his Mother not born in the US?

What does the Constitution state?

No 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

  • Anyone born inside the United States *
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

Obama’s mother was a citizen.  Therefore ————->>>>>>>>  Obama is a citizen.

Now, can we please move to something real.

Like perhaps the fact that he is an incompetent ass.

I’ve got a friend who was born in Japan. His pops is American. His mother is Japanese. He married a Thai woman. His child was born in Bangkok. That child is still an American citizen.

I know a guy from the Army. He is Jewish and was born in Israel to an American father and an Israeli mother. He’s still an American.

I dated a gal in the early 90s. She was born in Korea. Lived there most of her life. Her father was a civilian working in Seoul. Her mother is a Korean. The girl is still an American citizen.

So what if Obama was not born in Hawaii or inside the United States. His Mother is an American. He is an American.

What’s the big deal?

Clearly, his mother was a US citizen. His maternal Grandparents are US citizens.

What is the importance of the Birth Certificate? He is clearly a US citizen by virtue of his Mothers lineage. It matters not what his absentee daddy did or did not do. It matters not that or if he was raised in Indonesia. It matters not that his step father lied on a school enrollment to get cheaper tuition or whatever.

I don’t even care that he may or may not have been schooled in a madrassah.  He was born much to early to be some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate.  The huge rift between the Muslim world and the US did not occur until the years ’67 and ’73.  Obama is a little older than 42 or 43.  The Manchurian Candidate seems so far fetched as to be insane.  Especially in light of the fact that he doesn’t truly seem to understand Islam or Muslims.  At least, not from what I can tell.

Obviously (to me), if Obama is Muslim, he’s still not Muslim enough to understand Muslims or Islam. The guy is too stupid, clueless and ridiculous to have an understanding of much of anything if you ask me.

I’ve never understood this birth certificate hype.

Unless his mother’s family is in cahoots and has been for decades, he’s an American citizen.

The guy is arrogant. He’s a puffed up empty suit. He’s an idiot.  He’s Captain Kick Ass.  He’s a lipsticked pig on a stick. He’s a tool.  That doesn’t make him an alien.  It’s makes him a Liberal.

Did You Vote For Obama

In Humor, Politics, Stupidity, thinking out loud on June 3, 2010 at 12:01 am

Received this photo in an email.  Succinct, yeah?

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

In Commerce, Politics, Quotes, thinking out loud, Useful Information on May 26, 2010 at 6:51 pm

All who have ever written on government are unanimous, that among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.  ~ Edmund Burke

Below is an open letter written by former Proctor & Gamble VP Lou Pritchett to President Obama.  This letter was sent to the New York Times.  The NYT received it but never printed it.

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.  You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core. You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the “blame America” crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.  You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.  You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.  You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.  You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

This letter was sent to the NY Times but never acknowledged.  Never printed.  Why?  You can guess.  It’s been vetted by Snopes, if you’d like to check.  Supposedly, this letter has received over half a million hits since it hit the net.

I don’t necessarily agree with the whole of it.  That said, it hits home on some key points.  Obama’s ongoing World Apology Tour sickens me.  Obama strikes me as supremely arrogant as well.  He’s not fully disclosed his life story either.  From what I can gather, he’s more a pawn of Arab Muslim interests than even the Bush Family.  I thought that would be a diffuclt level to reach for a non-Bush scion.  I believe that I was wrong.

The obvious has occurred here in that every Obama supporter and their lackeys have come out of the woodwork to tell the world that Pritchett is full of hate, a bigot and a racist.  Any time the sacred Obama is criticized, these folks come out.  One can not make a single commet about Obama that is not full of flattery for fear of his minions and White Guilters coming out of the closet in droves to shout one down by calling all and sundry racists, bigots, etc.  How does that aid racial relations?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. Observations on a Late Publication on the Present State of the Nation (1769)

People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.Letter to Charles James Fox (1777-10-08)

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Preface to Brissot’s Address (1794)

~ Edmund Burke

NYT acknowledges receipt of Letter
Rebuttal to the LP letter

H.L. Mencken

In Literature, Quotes, thinking out loud on November 6, 2009 at 6:56 pm

What is any political campaign save a concerted effort to turn out a set of politicians who are admittedly bad and put in a set who are thought to be better. The former assumption, I believe is always sound; the latter is just as certainly false. For if experience teaches us anything at all it teaches us this: that a good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right… The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds.

We live in a land of abounding quackeries, and if we do not learn how to laugh we succumb to the melancholy disease which afflicts the race of viewers-with-alarm… In no other country known to me is life as safe and agreeable, taking one day with another, as it is in These States. Even in a great Depression few if any starve, and even in a great war the number who suffer by it is vastly surpassed by the number who fatten on it and enjoy it. Thus my view of my country is predominantly tolerant and amiable. I do not believe in democracy, but I am perfectly willing to admit that it provides the only really amusing form of government ever endured by mankind.

I believe in only one thing and that thing is human liberty. If ever a man is to achieve anything like dignity, it can happen only if superior men are given absolute freedom to think what they want to think and say what they want to say. I am against any man and any organization which seeks to limit or deny that freedom. . . [and] the superior man can be sure of freedom only if it is given to all men.

The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught.

The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.

I very well may have posted these before. They bear repeating.

Health Care, Socialism, Democracy and President Obama

In Commerce, Politics on September 17, 2009 at 1:31 pm

http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/barack_obama2.jpg

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. In Marxist theory, socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism characterized by unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done. [1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Forerunners of communist ideas existed in antiquity and particularly in the 18th and early 19th century France, with thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the more radical Gracchus Babeuf. Radical egalitarianism then emerged as a significant political power in the first half of 19th century in Western Europe. In the world shaped by the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, the newly established political left included many various political and intellectual movements, which are the direct ancestors of today’s communism and socialism – these two then newly minted words were almost interchangeable at the time – and of anarchism or anarcho-communism.

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Democracy is a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), “popular government”,[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), “people” and κράτος (krátos), meaning “power” in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’,[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom.[4] These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power.[5] Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by a constitution.[6][7]

Technically, Obama was/is engaging in a socialist act when he purchased majority shares of several organizations (banks, car manufacturing, etc).  We shall see in due time whether that was a wise act or something less.  It may have been the action that put the economy back on chart.  It may have been wasted money.  Time will reveal it’s truths.

Many in America are comparing a Political Theory with an Economic Theory.  It’s apples and oranges.  One can be both Socialist and Democratic.  One can be both Capitalist and Democratic.  One can not be a pure Socialist and engage in Capitalism or vice versa.  Though China is proving that one can be both Communist and Capitalist right before our eyes or perhaps they are simply oligarchic capitalists.

When someone states that Obama is Socialist that does not preclude him from being Democratic in political system preference.

President Obama is more Socialist than say Forbes or Reagan (perhaps).  He’s no more Socialist than Bush in my opinion.  Bush approved/extended a few programs that many might consider Socialist and if he had been able to sit for a third term, I believe, he would have acted much as did Obama.

On the question of health care, The United States must care for it’s citizens in our post-Industrial age.  The economy and capitalism is not going to do this nor are they designed in theory to do so.  Companies are attempting to cut back on expenses to improve the bottom line.  Canceling health care benefits.  Canceling pensions.  And so on and so forth.  If the United States is going to be a Nation of values and humanity going forward, it must care for it’s citizens.  Health Care is an important part of that plan.  In my opinion.  If America is truly a Nation of, by and for the people, then Health Care is and must be a priority.

It will likely mean heavier taxes.  Personally, I think some of those taxes should come from the businesses that benefit from American Capitalism, the Federal Government and from our military protectionist adventures around the world.  Some must come from the citizens themselves.

Additionally, I think in order for citizens to qualify for said health care, they should be willing to serve in some capacity the country that provides these benefits and “entitlements.”  “To whom much is given, much is expected” after all.  Some want much and expect to give nothing in return.

Welfare as we know it should be heavily reformed as a means to cut spending.  To qualify for welfare, I believe, that one should show that one is working towards something such as higher education or some sort of self improvement.  Welfare should be a graduated system rather than an all or nothing system.  If recipients are not working towards some goal, they should be willing to work in some service category such as working for an NGO or volunteer work or community service of some sort.  I’m completely against giving anyone’s tax dollars away for nothing for all or a great many years of one’s life.  Disability and ill-health should be taken into consideration, of course.  I know too many people back home in Kentucky who have never worked a day in their trailer park livin’, mayonnaise sandwich eatin’ lives.  Yet, they sit and collect tax dollars in the form of food stamps and other forms of social services.  Some of these folks sell drugs on the side or engage in other illicit activity.  Many do not.

Corporate welfare and other handouts should face heavy scrutiny as well.  Why are we giving corporations and other entities these moneys or tax breaks.  Foreign aid and foreign military support should be scrutinized in the same manner.  Why do we still have forces in Europe?  Korea?  Japan?  It’s time to pull out of these places.  Those forces could be better deployed elsewhere or home.  Why are we funding despots when we should be pressuring them to reform.  If they haven’t reformed by now, it’s not going to happen in most cases.  We have carrots with no sticks following on.

Socialism and Democracy can co-exist and America has proven this to a more or less limited degree over the past 70 or so years.  Sweden is rated the most democratic country in the world according to the links below.  It also engages heavily in social welfare.  I don’t know if larger countries can maintain that same model.  But, perhaps, it is worth the chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

Out of Iraq By August 2010

In Middle East, Military, Politics, thinking out loud on February 26, 2009 at 10:54 pm

http://www.politics.co.uk/photo/iraq-$8370$300.jpg

Obama Favoring Mid-2010 Pullout In Iraq, Aides Say (New York Times, Feb. 25, 2009, Pg. 1) President Obama is nearing a decision that would order American combat forces out of Iraq by August 2010, senior administration officials said, as he seeks to finally end a war that has consumed and polarized the United States for nearly six years. The timetable would give the military three months more to withdraw than the 16-month pullout Obama promised last year on the campaign trail. Officials said Obama was prepared to make that shift because he agreed with the concerns of ground commanders who want more time to cement security gains, strengthen political institutions and make sure Iraq does not become more unstable again. Even with the withdrawal order, Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions, as he said he would during last year’s campaign. Obama Expected to Set Date for Iraq Pullout August 2010 is Likely Decision, Three Months Later Than Pledged in Campaign (Washington Post, Feb. 25, 2009, Pg. 4) President Obama is expected to announce as early as Friday that he will remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by August 2010, three months later than promised during his campaign, U.S. officials said. Obama has not made a final decision on the matter, but it could come during a trip to give a speech in North Carolina on Friday, the officials said. The withdrawal timetable of about 19 months was one of several options outlined for Obama by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, including a faster schedule of 16 months and a slower plan of 23 months, one official said. “The risks are different with each option, and there are pros and cons of each one,” he said.

I absolutely agree with this. It’s time to get out. We’ve been wasting too much money on this place. Too much time and money. It’s time to prove to the world what we said. Restore a semi-Democracy and get out. It also proves that many of the most cynical Americans and other critics of the war were wrong. We took out Saddam. Helped to secure and started the rebuilding effort. We are leaving the country to the Iraqis now. It’s up to them to become an upstanding member of the international community. Islam and terrorism can be no excuse. They either stand or fall based upon their actions.

It’s time for America to leave Iraq to the Iraqis…

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/IraqWithdraw-2.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2695907806_e1f308a5de_o.gif

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_rel_2004.jpg

Barack Obama photo op…

In Politics on March 29, 2008 at 10:19 am

barack-phone-mix.jpg

Obama pulls a Dan Quayle.

The capture of Saddam Hussein.

In Middle East on January 17, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Saddam looking frazzled. It’s a pretty humorous photo. He certainly doesn’t look like the guy who would later appear in court attempting to bully the judges, prosecutors and the judiciary process as a whole. He no longer looks like the man who stood on a balcony of one of his many palaces and told the Iraqi Army that the “mother of all battles” is upon us and that victory is assured them by Allah.

iraq-photos-007.jpg

These are some photos from the capture of Saddam Hussein. A friend gave me these a couple of years back. He knew some of the guys on the Task Force that caught Saddam. Below are photos of Saddam just after he was pulled from the spider hole in which he was found. There is also a photo of the entrance to his hiding place and some of the money that he had stashed with him.

iraq-photos-001.jpgiraq-photos-002.jpgiraq-photos-003.jpg

iraq-photos-005.jpgiraq-photos-006.jpg

I blacked out the faces. I figured there may still be some folks running around out there who would rather not be easily identified.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers