He's Not My President?

Thoreau: "Government is Best Which Governs Least"

Archive for February 2009

Semper Fidelis — You Cannot Teach What you Have Not Learned

usmcflagraise1The Presidency of Barack Obama, can probably be summed up in one word, TEACHER because he seems to be running all over the country acting like our national Professor.  But like many teachers, it is difficult to teach something you have not learned yourself.  As we look at teachers across the country from our Public School System to those Professors in higher education, many of them teach falsehoods or skewed histories and theories simply because they have never learned first hand for themselves the lessons they teach .  It’s hard to understand an economics professor espousing theories when he has never been a CEO or run a small business putting those economic theories to practice.  It is difficult to understand a historian who lets his or her ideologies bias his opinion about events and times in which he or she did not live.  And it is hubris by the President to attempt to lecture the Marines at Camp Lejeune on the meaning of Semper Fidelis, when he has never put on a uniform, never fought a battle on the ground and never commanded fellow soldiers.  How does one follow a leader into battle when that leader has never bore the burden of battle himself?

Toward the end of his speech today at Camp Lejeune, President Obama stated “Semper Fidelis” and then held up his finger to silence the Marines as they responded to these solemn words so that he could define the term for them.  Like any U.S. Marine on the planet needs to have the term defined for him or her.  Folks, they have lived Semper Fidelis every day of their military serving lives, and they don’t need some faux Commander in Chief trying to explain to them what the term means.

Mr. President do yourself a favor and don’t attempt to lecture our brave men and women on something you have no concept of or belief in yourself.  During your time in the State Senate, U.S. Senate and while on the campaign trail, you have repeatedly abused our military with your words and your actions.  Don’t think today you can somehow take credit for removing troops from Iraq, nor tell our Marines what Semper Fidelis means.  You simply have no credibility in this area sir, and you would do best to keep your professorial opinions to yourself.

To all of our armed service men and women, our veterans and to our Marines at Camp Lejeune, I want to say thank you for all you have risked in protecting mine and every Americans’ freedoms.  Your country loves you.  We will not lecture you; we will simply sit humbly in your presence with a deep and never ending appreciation for what you have provided us.  Thank you.

Update 3/6/2009:

I think our military may not think much of our President either.  View this YouTube video of the tepid reaction to him by our military compared to their boisterous welcome to President Bush.

Written by KJ Kaufman

February 27, 2009 at 11:02 am

Trying to Make Sense of Federal Budgets & Spending


As it has been reported on many news sites today, the Democratic led House of Representatives passed a $410 billion “Omnibus” spending bill by a voting margin of 245 to 178.  What is an “Omnibus” bill?  Defined as follows:

An OMNIBUS BILL packages together several measures into one or combines diverse subjects into a single bill. Examples are reconciliation bills, combined appropriations bills, and private relief and claims bills.

According to Bloomberg.com:


The measure would complete budget work Democrats postponed last year when they were unable to agree with then-President George W. Bush on spending. Bush wanted to freeze most domestic spending. Democrats balked, figuring they could get a better deal from Bush’s successor.

So this $410 billion “Omnibus” Spending Bill is a wrap up of the 2009 Federal Government’s Budget, a budget passed under the Bush Administration and approved by Congress in 2008.  Yet under these difficult economic circumstances instead of trimming the Buget that passed during the last fiscal year before the economy worsened, instead of tightening up their budget and looking to spend less (like all Americans are doing right now), Congress decided they needed to spend even more money than the stimulus package of $780 billion signed by President Obama last week provided.  According to a CNN report:

 Democrats defended the size of the bill, saying it was necessary to help counter the economic downturn.

So the budget they passed in 2008 for fiscal year Sept. 2008 through Sept. 2009 was not big enough to counter the economic downturn.  The stimulus package signed last week in the amount of $780 billion did not account for this need, so another $410 billion is required this week.  I can’t imagine that if any U.S. business or any U.S. household ran their budgets this way they would be surviving (that is without a government bailout).  Government bails itself out once again at the taxpayers’ expense. 

Why is it such a foreign concept for our Federal Government to “tighten their belts” during tough economic times.  I simply want to scream from the rooftops, STOP SPENDING ALREADY!  The rest of us have, why can’t you?  You don’t have the money. We are sick of giving you money for you to spend irresponsibly.  Enough is enough already!

Stop Financially Raping this Country!

Update 3/9/2009

This is not Geroge Bush’s Pork Bill!  First, civics 101 states that spending bills are not written by the president.  All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.  This Omnibus Bill may have been written last year, but is was written by the House of Representatives which by the way had a Democratic majority last year under the Bush Administration.  It has been noted that 40% of the earmarks (pork) in the current Omnibus Bill being debated in the Senate came from and comes from Republicans while 60% of the earmarks are from Democrats.

Update 3/10/2009

Senate passes Omnibus Bill.  Federal government fiscal budget through August 2009 now exceeds last year’s fiscal budget by 10%.  That’s a 10% increase over last year’s budget while all Americans are attempting to reduce their spending budgets amidst the financial crisis/recession in this country.  Have you had enough yet with these Nation financial rapists? 

It’s Up to the American People Now

addresstocongressAfter President Obama’s “Address to Congress” this evening, it really is up to the American people now.  Will we be a Nation that approves of bigger government, more entitlements and a socialistic government, or will the values of smaller government, reigning in entitlements, and preserving capitalism prevail with the American people?  At this point only time will tell.

Based on the speech tonight, Governor Jindal’s response and the Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle speaking on the cable news channels post speech coverage, the differences between the two parties couldn’t be more evident and the divide between a conservative and a liberal more great.

In evaluating how the American people will respond, I think we can look at four key phrases from President Obama’s “Address to Congress”.  The following are not exact quotes but paraphrases that preserve the original intent:

We will recover [from this economic crisis] and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely.

…even as we make hard choices to bring our deficits down.

We will roll back the Bush tax cuts, but if you are making less than $250 thousand per year, you will not see your tax rates rise.

For us conservatives, it seems inconceivable that a President could sign an $800 bilion stimulus package last week and have another over $400 billion omnibus bill sitting in Congress and believe that he is practicing fiscal responsibility.  It is just an outright lie, that if you roll back the tax cuts, those making less than $250 thousand per year will not see a tax increase.  We realize that leadership takes bold action, but there doesn’t seem to be anything wise about the liberal spending spree that is underway and planned by President Obama that will continue long into the future.  There doesn’t seem to be anything wise about the outright disingenuous rhetoric by President Obama and his Democratic Congress.  When President Obama says we will recover from this economic crisis better and stronger, it seems that can’t possibly be true with this amount of debt left as the burden for our children.  For us conservatives, we have never believed that government is the answer to our problems but rather the source.  Unfortunately this President and this Democratically led Congress believes in just that.  Now it is time to find out what the American people believe.

The President can continue to rewrite history in speeches as to the causes of the current economic recession, but many Americans actually follow the facts of the issues and know the truth.  Sure there are many Americans that will only listen to the sound bites and believe whatever the President and the Main Stream Media tell them no matter how disingenuous the remarks, but in the end you can’t cover the reality of the individual American’s life.  Will he or she be better off  four years from now than he or she was just a few months ago.  At the rate this Administration and Congress are spending money and in the manner in which they are headed, most Americans will not. 

The ultimate price of politics will be paid when the American people decide which government they prefer:  a bigger government filled with entitlements and acting socialistically, or a smaller government, reigning in entitlements and preserving capitalism.  It’s up to you America, I’m anxious to see what you decide.

If you need a little more coxing on the importance of this issue America, take a look at this recent video of Glenn Beck.

Written by KJ Kaufman

February 24, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Barney Frank — Banking Queen Lyrics

barney-frankThose listening to Rush Limbaugh regularly are familiar with Paul Shanklin’s parody to Abba’s Dancing Queen entitled Banking Queen.  As you are well aware, Shanklin wrote the lyrics in accordance with Barney Frank’s (Chairman of the House Banking Committee) position on housing  to entertainingly reveal his lax oversight which contributed to the financial crisis in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Sung in a Barney Frank lisp , it has always been difficult for me to understand the words.  I went searching the Internet to find the written lyrics, but came up short.  I finally sat down, listened intently, replayed the song over and over and think that I have come up with the accurate lyrics to the parody.  Let me know if you hear anything different, but here they are:

Sung to Dancing Queen by ABBA

Banking Queen




You can build.

You can buy.

Any house your heart desires.

Oo zero down.


 I am the banking queen.


Friday night and your cash is low.

I know a place that you can go.

Oh, get your house and use it.

 Go ahead abuse it.

 You can do anything.


Go out and have a fling.

 I am the banking queen.

Old and sweet didn’t do a thing.

 Banking queen.

 Don’t complain or you’ll hear me scream oh yeah.


You can build.

You can buy.

Any house your heart desires.

Oo zero down.


 I am the banking queen.


Told the bankers hey you guys.

Make the loans or it’s your behind.

My friends at Fannie sure need it.

Do it my way or beat it

Why are the stocks crashing?


That doesn’t mean a thing.

I’m still the banking queen.

Never spanked for a single thing. 

Banking queen.

Don’t complain or you’ll hear me scream oh yeah.


You can build.

You can buy.

Any house your heart desires.

Oo, zero down


I am the banking queen.


 I am the banking queen.



Please feel free to comment with any corrections to the lyrics.  Also if you would like to listen to the song, you can find it here on YouTube.

Written by KJ Kaufman

February 24, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Spring Training is Here!


Peoria Sports Complex

For those of you who are baseball fans, it’s time to take a break from politics and celebrate my favorite time of year — Baseball Spring Training.  With the Baseball strike in the ’90s and the steroids scandal of the 2000’s baseball has lost much of its luster, much like our politics today has.  Baseball, however, remains my favorite sport.  Baseball like politics cannot be viewed in sound bites or quick action.  Baseball is a game of not only skill, but thought, a lot of thought when it is played and managed correctly.  Baseball will always have a profound appeal to me for that reason.  And politics remains appealing to me for the same reason.  We’ll see which baseball teams excel this year, those teams that think through and exercise the proper strategies at the proper moments in the game and the season.  If only our politicians could produce a winning team this year, but alas things on the political front aren’t nearly as hopeful.

So Relax Everyone for America’s Pasttime is Back and Begins Today!

Written by KJ Kaufman

February 24, 2009 at 12:08 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with

Is Governor Bobby Jindal A Natural Born Citizen?

bobbyjindalBobby Jindal, the current governor of Louisianna, has been pushed in many conservative circles as the great hope for the future of the Republican party.  I think Bobby Jindal is a wonderful representative of conservatism and a great ambassador for our conservative cause, but under the heading you can’t have it both ways, is Bobby Jindal eligible to run for President of the United States?

For those who believe that President Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States (and is currently usurping the office) based on the one fact that he was born to a Father who was a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948; therefore, also making him a British Subject and a dual citizen at birth, then those same people will also believe that Bobby Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen due to his Indian parentage.

Courtesy of notablebiographies.com:

Jindal was born in 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to parents who had just moved there from India to attend graduate school.

It can probably be assumed that his parent were in the United States on student visas and were not at the time U.S. Citizens.  If you believe both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the child’s birth for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Bobby Jindal has a problem.  Under this definition, he would not be a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, he would not be eligible to be President of the United States.  This is why it is imperative that the United States Supreme Court finally make a decision and define for the purposes of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution clarification of the clause as to what it definitively means to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Update February 25, 2009

Amar and Raj Jindal are the Punjabi-born parents of Governor Bobby Jindal.  Raj Jindal’s maiden name was Raj Gupta.  According to nola.com:

In fact, it was Gupta’s career move that brought the newly married couple to Louisiana.

Gupta was accepted as a graduate assistant at Louisiana State University when she was pregnant with Bobby. Her husband, who at the time was an assistant professor at a Chandigarh engineering college, was concerned about her moving overseas in her condition. LSU offered her one month of maternity leave if she joined the program, a deal the Jindals agreed was too good to turn down.

They moved in January 1971. Bobby was born soon after, in Baton Rouge.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that at the time of Bobby Jindal’s birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens.  In fact they could not have been U.S. Citizens at the time because citizenship in the United States almost always requires  5 years of residency in the United States before qualifying.  It is clear that the Jindal’s were only here for a few months before Bobby Jindal was born.  Therefore, if you think both parents must be US Citizens at the time of birth, Bobby Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen and does not qualify under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.

How to Turn a Conservative Into a Liberal — The Story of Pepe



I moved to Arizona and bought my house 3 years ago.  This is the first house I have owned.  During my college years and early adulthood, I had a Golden Retriever that I moved from apartment to apartment.  Her name was Meagan.  She was named Meagan in a salute to Ronald Reagan (I used to affectionately call her Meagan Reagan).  She was a wonderful, loveable dog, and I cherish the 13 years we spent together.  One day I woke up and found that Meagan could no longer stand.  I had to euthanize her that day.   That was a decade ago, and to this day it still brings tears to my eyes to think of it.

Afterward, I decided I would not get another dog until I lived in a house where the dog could have a proper backyard to run around and play instead of being cooped up in a small apartment.  In January of 2006, the glorious day came where I became a proud home owner.  I then began my search for a dog.  My new backyard was small, so I decided to stick with a smaller breed of dog and was interested in the Chihuahua line.  Maybe because I still loved the movie Legally Blond, I was stuck in this Chihuahua mode.

In March of that same year, my nephew called me to tell me a friend of his girlfriend had found a dog wandering the streets with no identification that was part Chihuahua.  The friend of my nephew’s girlfriend had already placed an add in the paper to find the owner, but had no luck.  The dog had no identification and so the owner could not be found.  My nephew took me over to meet the dog, and I brought the dog home that night. 

Well, he wasn’t exactly a Chihuahua.  He was small, but not as small as a Chihuahua, and strangely spotted.  He certainly had the temperament of a Chihuahua because he was a nervous dog.  I brought him to the Veterinarian, got him all of his shots, and had him neutered all in an attempt at being a responsible pet owner.  I named him Pepe to pay homage to his Chihuahua roots.  I was told by the Veterinarian that Pepe was part Chihuahua, part Terrier, and part Australian Cattle Dog (hence the interesting spotted markings).  This ends up being a strange breed indeed in that the Chihuahua part is an anxiety ridden pooch while the Australian Cattle Dog portion is very much task oriented and very adept at herding.

When Pepe was found, he was what I would describe as a “rugged individualist,” a true conservative.  As I mentioned, he was found on the streets.  At the time, he was hanging out at a depot for Unified School District buses.  He was feeding himself by digging in the trash and finding food wherever he could find it.  When he first came to live with me he ran away three times.  Two of three times he was far enough away from my house that I had to search for him in my car and finally found him on two occasions over a mile from my home.  He still had that independent streak, and although I was providing for his every need, he still had the desire to fend for himself.

As you can well imagine, when all of your needs are met everyday by another, you finally become dependent on what is given you and you stop trying to fend for yourself.  You lose that desire for rugged individualism, you give up and simply just take what is given to you (in other words, you become a far left leaning liberal).

In the past year, there have been two occasions where I accidentally left my side gate open for more than 24 hours.  In the past, Pepe would have seized upon this opportunity to run away.  During these times in the past year, he’s gone nowhere, scratching at the back slider to be let back in to the comforts of the home.  He spends his entire day lying on the couch sleeping the day away.  He eats, he runs around a bit in the backyard (but not as much as he used to enjoy) and he sleeps on the couch.  Day after day, week after week, month after month.  What happened to my Pepe?

Simple, he became a blood sucking liberal feeding off of his host.  It’s my fault; I made him this way.  I’ve given him everything, and he no longer desires to obtain these things for himself.  His rugged individualism is gone, his desire for entitlement has piqued, and he will probably never be the same dog again that I brought home that day over 3 years ago.  That my friends is how you turn a conservative into a liberal.

Is Pepe better off now than he was three years ago?  Perhaps, but from a purely superficial human point of view.  He’s lost his instinctual desires, he’s lost his “doggy” sense of self.  He is simply now a pawn in the game of me.  He didn’t have a choice.  I don’t know what he, from a dog’s point of view, would have chosen.  I dictatorially decided for him.

Because Pepe is a dog, he didn’t know any better.  He didn’t posses the acumen to thwart my attempts to liberalize him.  He couldn’t reason that being a rugged individualist would be better than being a liberal dependent on another sucking the entitlements the host offered. 

But we my friends as humans have the ability to rationalize what is happening to us and our country.  We know America will be filled with Pepe’s if we don’t take an active stand to stop what is happening.  We must revive rugged individualism especially in these hard economic times; otherwise, we will end up like Pepe — living in a nanny state, totally dependent on our government for our every need and desire.  We’ve seen how that has worked out historically, and now you have seen how that has worked out for Pepe.

Written by KJ Kaufman

February 21, 2009 at 8:06 pm

Arizona Legislation SB 1158 and President Obama’s NBC Status


In January of 2009, the Arizona Legislature introduced bill SB 1158 An Act Ammending Sections 16-341 and 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Conduct of Elections.  The bill focuses on adding the following language in an attempt to make presidential candidates prove that they are Natural Born Citizens:

Within ten days after filing the nomination paper, a presidential candidate shall submit an affidavit in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in ARTICLE II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

But does this bill really accomplish it supposed objective?  More importantly, will this legislation finally shine light on President Obama’s current Natural Born Citizen status?  Personally, I don’t think it goes far enough, but it hasn’t passed as law yet, so there is still time to further modify it so it can reach its ultimate objective.


SB 1158 adds the quoted text above to both A.R.S. 16-341 and A.R.S. 16-507 leaving the existing language intact and amending each with the above quoted text.  So we must focus on the above quoted text.  From the above quoted, the following is the new burden placed on presidential candidates:

a presidential candidate shall submit an affidavit in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen…

It is my opinion that this language is too vague to ensure President Obama would have to comply.  Let me explain.  In the last election, President Obama had to file a signed statement that said he was a Natural Born Citizen, i.e., Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper A.R.S. 16-242.  Under an earlier public records information request that I made to the Arizona Secretary of State, I am in possession of a copy of Barack Obama’s signed form.  I believe President Obama’s legal team will argue that he already signed a form attesting to his Natural Born Citizen status, and more importantly, by virtue of the fact that he is the President of the United States of America that alone is proof that he is a Natural Born Citizen.  He may also give the State of Arizona a copy of his Certification of Live Birth as found on his website Fight The Smears.  It seems to me that if President Obama makes these arguments and provides the above referenced items, he would satisfy the new requirement and be placed on the Arizona 2012 general election ballot.

What Modifications Will Need to Be Made for this Bill to Work

As I have argued, the bill in its present form may not prevent President Obama’s name from appearing on the Arizona 2012 general election ballot.  What must be done is specific language must be contained within the bill regarding the proof that will be accepted required for Natural Born Citizen status.  I would argue that the bill needs to be re-written to include the following language.  All Presidential Candidates will submit the following records/documents in order to prove Natural Born Citizen status:

  1. A copy of the candidate’s “long form” birth certificate which includes the attending physician’s signature and the name of the hospital the candidate was born in.
  2. A copy of all immigration records relating to the candidate.
  3. A copy of all passports held by the candidate during his or her lifetime.

Why are these three inclusions important?  I will explain.

With respect to President Obama, he has not provided a “long form” birth certificate on his Fight the Smears website.  The birth certificate on that website is referred to as a “Certification of Live Birth” commonly referred to as a short form birth certificate.  It does not state on it the hospital he was born in, or the attending physician’s name.  The “long form” birth certificate used in the State of Hawaii is referred to as a “Certificate of Live Birth” not a “Certification of Live Birth,” please note that there is difference in Hawaii between the terms Certificate and Certification when it comes to birth certificates.

The second requirement regarding immigration records is also critical in President Obama’s case.  President Obama was born a dual citizen meaning through decendence on his Father’s side he was a British Subject, and through decendence on his mother side and based on his presumed birth in Hawaii, he was an American Citizen.  It is also widely known that President Obama lived in Indonesia as a child from ages 6 to 10.  What is not known is his when he emmigrated to Indonesia did he do so as a British Subject or an American Citizen.  Before his emmigration or during his residence in Indonesia, did his Step-Father Lolo Soetoro adopt him and change his citizenship to Indonesian?  Upon returning to the United States, did President Obama become a Naturalized U.S. Citizen which is very different from a Natural Born Citizen?  By requiring that all immigration records relating to the candidate be submitted, many if not all of these questions will be answered.

Finally, requiring that all passports held throughout the candidate’s lifetime be provided further information regarding the candidate’s citizenship will be obtained.  In the case of President Obama, he has not produced any of his school records for the Universities of Occidental, Columbia and Harvard.  It has been argued that he attended some or all of those schools under foreign citizenship.  It is also known that President Obama traveled abroad during his early twenties.  By requiring the passport records of candidates, we would find out what citizenship status President Obama was using during his college years.

Conclusive Remarks

The following Arizona State Senators and Representatives introduced Arizona Bill SB 1158:

Senator Russell Pearce (R)

Senator Pamela Gorman (R)

Senator Gould (R)

Senator Chuck Gray (R)

Senator Jack Harper (R)

Senator Thayer Verschoor (R)

Representative Judy Burgess (R)

Representative Carl Seel (R)


I will be following the progress of Arizona Bill SB 1158 closely and encouraging the Senators and Representatives listed above to add the additional language (like suggested above) to this bill to ensure it will actually meet the stated objective.  Check back here for updates on what transpires.

Update 9/22/2009

In following up on this legislation, I discovered that the Arizona State Legislature did not pass this bill during the last legislative session; therefore, the bill is dead.  I have contacted the eight Senators above to see if any of them are willing to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session which does not begin until January 2010.  Yes, that is correct, the Arizona State Legislature only works half a year, or at least is only in session half of the year.  I am awaiting their response, and I have also asked them to include in the bill a definition of natural born citizen.

What Rights Do Voters Have? An Exercise in Finding the Answer

(Note:  I have exhausted most of my options as a voter with respect to the 2008 election.  I am now focusing my efforts on the 2012 election and Arizona State Bill 1158.)


For some of you whom followed the Presidential election closely, there remains a lingering question in your mind as to President Obama’s status as a Natural Born Citizen.  There have been many cases brought to the courts thus far regarding this issue, but no court has actually heard the case and adjudicated the matter. 

In all of the reading I have done on this issue, I found that the U.S. Constitution itself does not define what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen.  There are some that argue, you simply need to have been born on U.S. soil to be a Natural Born Citizen, while others state that as long as your citizenship is not dependent on any other law than you are a Natural Born Citizen.  According to U.S. Code Title 8 § 1401, in order to be a U.S. citizen one qualification is that you be:

a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; <snip>

The indisputable status of President Barack Obama’s citizenship is thus:  his parents were an African (Kenyan) man (Barack Obama Sr.) and an American woman (Stanley Anne Dunham).  I use the word indisputable here because this is what President Obama claims.  I guess it could be argued that President Obama’s father was not Barack Obama Sr., but I want to keep the scope of my argument as narrow as possible to focus my energies on answering the question, what rights do voters have?  As many of you know, President Obama during the campaign cited on one of his campaign websites “Fight the Smears” the following:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.

He also states on that same website the following:

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Having a Kenyan father, a British Subject, would therefore make President Obama at the time of his birth both a British subject as afforded him through decendence from his father and an American citizen through decendence from his mother and his birth (as he claims) in the State of Hawaii.  Based on these facts, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama, was a dual citizen.  Quite possibly this is why President Obama used the term native citizen rather than Natural Born Citizen on his Fight The Smears website.

It is widely known that as a child Barack Obama resided in Indonesia.  According to an AP Report from January 2007:

Obama <snip> moved to Indonesia at age 6 to live with his mother and stepfather, attending schools in the country until age 10 <snip>

President Obama also stated in his Book Dreams of My Father that he lived in Indonesia.  In one excerpt from the book he states:

In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school.  (p. 142)

It is indisputable that Barack Obama lived in Indonesia as a child.  What is not known is what his citizenship status was while residing in Indonesia and thereafter.   Did he enter Indonesia as a US Citizen or as a British Subject?  While residing in Indonesia did his citizenship status change?  For example, did his Step-father Lolo Soetoro adopt him, and did he become an Indonesian citizen?  When he later re-entered the United States, what was his citizenship status?  For example, did he become a Naturalized U.S. citizen?  None of these questions have been answered, yet we are to take his word for it that he is a Natural Born Citizen as fact when many circumstances imply otherwise.

The Crux of My Argument

My argument begins with the simple premise that Leo Donofrio used in his lawsuit Donofrio v. Wells, simply that we do not know for sure if President Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because the Constitution does not specifically define Natural Born Citizen and we are inclined to believe that he is not a Natural Born Citizen based on his dual citizenship status at birth, based on his residence in Indonesia during his childhood, and based on U.S. Code Title 8 § 1401.

I am not a lawyer and I do not plan on filing any lawsuit against any public official including President Obama regarding his citizenship, but what I do plan to do is attempt to find out what rights voters have with respect to Natural Born Citizens being placed on election ballots for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS), and I am attempting to have the proof of eligibility for a candidate being placed on the balllot for POTUS changed.  To this end, I live in the State of Arizona, so I will be focused solely  on the State of Arizona’s requirements for proving eligibility and my rights as a voter in the State of Arizona.

Arizona Requirements for the 2008 Presidential Election

I went to the Arizona Secretary of State’s website, since the Secretary of State is in charge of elections, to complete some research on this matter.  On the site I found a form entitled:  Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Form (A.R.S. § 16-242).  From what I can gather from the Arizona Secretary of State’s website, this form is required to be signed by the candidate in order for the candidate’s name to be placed on the ballot.  More importantly this form specifically states:

I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.

I had filled out the appropriate Public Records Reproduction Request Form (A.R.S. § 39-121.03) and mailed it to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.  I received an electronic copy of Barack Obama’s signed form, so we now have proof that he attested in writing to the fact that he is a Natural Born Citizen.  I was originally formulating a complaint and was going to file an online Civil Rights Complaint Form with the Arizona Attorney General’s office.  The reason I had chosen a voter’s civil rights complaint was all voter issues through the Arizona Attorney General’s office fall under civil rights.  After contacting the Arizona Attorney General’s office, I was informed that all voter civil right’s complaints must adhere to Voting rights; definitions (A.R.S. § 41-1421).  I no longer believe I can pursue this venue because my complaint does not satisfy the requirement of this legislation:

discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, ancestry or national origin.

I am now searching the means or venue by which I can have my complaint heard.

In a phone call I made to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, I confirmed that the only document required in the last election with respect to eligibility for the office of POTUS was the signed form (A.R.S. § 16-242) referenced above.  The employee I spoke with did indicate that the DNC filed a Democratic Certificate of Candidates following their convention held in Denver, and the employee also confirmed that Nancy Pelosi signed this form which did not include any verbiage stating that their candidate was eligible for the position.  I have made a public records request to obtain the Nancy Pelosi signed Democratic Certificate of Candidate submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State.  On Friday, February 27th, I received an electronic copy of Nancy Pelosi’s signed Democratic Certificate of candidate, and  as indicated above the certificate contains no eligibility language within it.  In addition, I have sent an email to the Arizona Secretary of States’s office asking how they handle complaints regarding ineligible candidates being placed on ballots.  I am awaiting their response and none has been provided the AZ office of Secretary of State.

Once I find the proper forum to pursue this, as a result of the above information, I will argue that my voting rights have been violated because an ineligible candidate for the Democratic Party was placed on the ballot for the position of President of the United States.  Again, keeping to my very narrow focus that President Obama’s father was a Kenyan native and a British Subject, and Barack Obama later lived in Indonesia during his childhood, Barack Obama (when he signed this form) could not prove that he was a  Natural Born Citizen based on his signature alone even if he had signed form (A.R.S. § 16-242) unwittingly claiming Natural Born Citizen status when he potentially does not posses this status.

Let’s summarize the Arizona laws in effect regarding the 2008 Presidential Election and eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States:

  1. A Presidential candidate had to sign form (A.R.S. § 16-242) attesting he or she is a Natural Born Citizen.
  2. In accordance with Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper (A.R.S. § 16-242) the Arizona Secretary of State “shall certify to the officer in charge of elections, the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.”
  3. A major party chairman must submit a candidate nomination form following the respective parties national convention in order to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates placed on the general election ballot.  This form has no verbiage contained therein attesting to eligibility for the position of President of the United States.

So what we now know is that in the State of Arizona there is a three-prong process to get one’s name on the general election ballot for President of the United States, and only one prong in this process requires aherence to Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

Another Interesting Arizona 2008 Election Law Fact

In another (little known) election law governing the State of Arizona is (A.R.S. § 16-805) entitled:

Findings of fact and statement of public policy by the legislature of the state of Arizona concerning steps which must be taken to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of this state and the safety of this state from international Communistic conspiracy

This election related legislation speaks in great detail on protecting Arizona voters and residents from communist takeovers of the Arizona State and Federal governments.  Ironically, in the most important position in our land, the same measures are not taken to ensure the presidential candidate in a presidential election is eligible under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution — A Natural Born Citizen.

New Arizona Election Legislation Being Introduced

It would appear that the Arizona Legislature has already found our present laws lacking in establishing indisputable proof that a candidate for President is a Natural Born Citizen.  Sitting in the Arizona State Legislature right now is State Bill SB 1158.  The pertinent part of the bill with respect to presidential elections states:

Within ten days after filing the nomination paper, a presidential candidate shall submit an affidavit in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in ARTICLE II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

I’m wondering if his bill really has enough language in it to prevent President Obama from being placed on the ballot in 2012.  What if he provided the Birth Certificate that on the Internet, and his current driver’s license.  Under this bill that appears to be enough to satisfy the requirement.  This new bill is encouraging though as it helps to achieve the overall goal and that is that in the 2012 election the requirement for Natural Born Citizen status may be met.  I will follow the progress of this bill and discover if it reaches the goal.

The Complaint

As a voter in the 2008 general election, my voter rights, and the voter rights of all Arizona voters were violated when Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer certified candidate Barack Obama was qualified for the 2008 presidential preference election ballot.  With these two important facts widely known and available to her at the time:  1) Barack Obama was born a dual citizen and 2) Barack Obama as a youth lived in Indonesia, Arizona Secretary of Jan Brewer could not have known (even with Barack Obama’s sworn statement) that Barack Obama was eligible under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution to be President.  As a result, his name appearing on the general election ballot following all Arizona election laws, jeopardized the rights of all voters in the 2008 election as Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer could not reasonably claim that all presidential candidates were eligible for the position they were aspiring to.

  1. U.S. Code Title 8 § 1401 defines in part a Natural Born Citizen as a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  Since Barack Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan and a British Subject at the time of Barack Obama’s Jr.’s birth Barack Obama Jr. was, therefore, also a British Subject, subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948.  I am not saying that President Obama knowingly signed (A.R.S. § 16-242) attesting he was a Natural Born Citizen when he was not, but because no further proof of his citizenship status was required, the Arizona Secretary of State could not certify that Barack Obama was qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.
  2. President Obama through his public website “Fight the Smears” acknowledges point #1 above in the sense that he acknowledges that he was a British Subject at birth.  In addition, he refers to himself as a Native Born Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.  But these claims made on his website did not occur until after he had signed (A.R.S. § 16-242), so again the fact remains that he may have unwittingly attested to Natural Born Citizen status when he did not posses such status.
  3. It is indisputable (as Barack Obama has acknowledged in his book Dreams of My Father) that he lived in Indonesia as a child from the age 6 through age 10.  Due to his dual citizenship, we do not know if he resided in Indonesia as a British Subject or as a U.S. Citizen.  Furthermore, we do not know if his Step-father Lolo Soetoro adopted him while in Indonesia granting him Indonesian citizenship.  We do not know what his citizenship status was upon re-entering the United States in Hawaii, i.e., did he become a Naturalized U.S. citizen.  As a result, the Arizona Secretary of State could not certify that Barack Obama was qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.
  4. Based on items #1, #2 and #3 above, I am arguing that my voting rights and the voting rights of all Arizona voters were violated in the 2008 Presidential election process when Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer certified candidate Barack Obama was qualified for the 2008 presidential preference election ballot.
  5. As stated on the State of Arizona Attorney General website,  the Attorney General for the State of Arizona has at least three reponsibities within the Attorney General’s  purvue that are pertinent to this claim:  A) The Arizona Attorney General serves “as the chief legal officer of the State,” B) The Arizona Attorney General has a duty to “bring and defend lawsuits on behalf of the State,” and C) The Arizona Attorney General’s office is charged with “representing and providing legal advice to most State agencies.”
  6. In accordance with the Attorney General’s responsibilities stated in item #5 above, it would seem the Attorney General of the State of Arizona has a duty to ensure that election laws are followed, that voters’ rights are not violated and that our elected officials are both protected and prevented from violating our voting rights.  The laws in place during the 2008 presidential election were as follows:
    1. A Presidential candidate had to sign form (A.R.S. § 16-242) attesting he or she is a Natural Born Citizen.
    2. In accordance with Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper (A.R.S. § 16-242) the Arizona Secretary of State “shall certify to the officer in charge of elections, the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.”
    3. A major party chairman must submit a candidate nomination form following the respective parties national convention in order to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates placed on the general election ballot.  This form has no verbiage contained therein attesting to eligibility for the position of President of the United States.
  7. In accordance with sub-items #7.1, #7.2 and #7.3, once the Arizona Secretary of State accepted signed form (A.R.S. § 16-242) from presidential candidate Barack Obama as sole proof of his Natural Born Citizenship status, no other proof was subsequently required before placing his name on the 2008 general election ballot.  Arizona Secretary of State, Jan Brewer also certified that Barack Obama was qualified to be placed on the presidential preference election ballot, and therefore, all subsequent ballots leading up to and including the 2008 general election ballot without questioning or receiving further proof of his eligibility under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  As a result, my voter rights and all Arizona voters rights were violated as it could not be attested by anyone that Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen without further adjudication in a court of law.

I am still attempting to formulate exactly how to word the points listed above, so you may see this text change over time in this blog post.  I am also still attempting to obtain the proper venue to pursue this claim.

Conclusive Remarks

I have taken the aforementioned tactical approach in an effort to bring a different argument to the Natural Born Citizen status debate, and primarily to ensure that an ineligible candidate for POTUS will not be allowed on the 2012 General Election ballot in the State of Arizona.   It seems to me if the above argument can be made, the crux of the argument being that Barack Obama could not have possibly affirmed his Natural Born Citizen status either wittingly or unwittingly, then we may finally prevail in that at least someone will have to define and/or look further into the issue of President Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status and that at least in my State more stringent requirements will be in place for the 2012 General Election.  Arizona’s Bill SB 1158 in my opinion will need to be ammended further to meet this goal, but I am now going to pursue following this bill closely with it as the base for ensuring a proper election in 2012.

I am hopeful, but also realistic that this complaint may never grow legs or find the proper venue to be heard.  I make the complaint in the interest of upholding the United States Constitution and ensuring that all voters as well as our elected officials be provided our Constitutional protections.  Will I prevail?  Probably not, but the question that will be answered at the end of this exercise is what rights voters really have.  So far, the answer to that question doesn’t seem to be readily available, but we will continue to pursue the cause.

The original question asked in this post is what rights do voters have when it comes to the issue of Natural Born Citizen status in the last Presidential election.  The answer it appears is we really don’t have any rights in correcting what occured last year, but we seem to possess rights in shaping the debate and legislation that will be in place in 2012 so that this doesn’t happen again.

Finally, I would like to thank a fellow blogger JBJD of  http://jbjd.wordpress.com for providing the inspiration for pursuing this area of exploration.  I do not wish to imply that JBJD has blessed my line of thinking here or agrees with my arguments, I simply wish to credit this blogger with the inspiration for this action.

Written by KJ Kaufman

February 17, 2009 at 2:13 pm

With Change, All We Have Left Now Is Hope

rgibbsRobert Gibbs, President Obama’s White House Press Secretary, appearing on Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation yesterday uttered the word hope or a derivative thereof 5 times in describing how the “Stimulus Plan” will work out.  Without hope it sounds like the Obama Administration’s plan doesn’t have any chance of working.  Here are Mr. Gibbs hopes on the “Stimulus Plan” as taken from his interview with Mr. Schieffer:

Well Bob we certainly hope that this money gets moved out to states and localities to prevent them uh having to cut police officers or teachers uh…

Hopefully with this plan now that it’s through Congress and awaiting the President’s signature we believe that 3 1/2 million jobs will be saved or created by this plan…

So we’re hopeful that it will get this economy moving again…

You know the economic team believes that this bill will help us stay away from those double digit economic unemployment numbers, so we’re certainly hopeful of that…

He’s [President Obama] hopeful that Republicans start to reach back…  [emphasis added is mine]

Sounds like this change needs a whole lot of hope!  And here is my favorite quote from Mr. Gibbs on Sunday’s Face the Nation:

We’ve lost about 3.6 million jobs uh during the course of this recession and about half of those jobs, job losses have happened in the last three months…

I find this very interesting.  President Obama was elected on two campaign platforms HOPE and CHANGE.  And in the last 3 months, that would be since November 4th when President Obama was elected, we have lost 1.8 million jobs.  The other 1.8 million jobs took over a year to lose.  So maybe, just maybe most Americans and in particular small business owners and larger corporations aren’t seeing this hope and change mantra as a way to lead a country out of an economic recession.  With all of this change it seems that Americans are saying all we have left now is hope.

Written by KJ Kaufman

February 16, 2009 at 11:32 am