Monday, December 29, 2008

Letter from the "Peacemaker"

A reader who calls himself "The Peacemaker" emailed a response to a recent blog post. I will attempt to add some comments in blue.  The Peacemaker's comments are in red.

I read the recent ‘Open Letter to All US Senators’ that was posted on your blog and find it seriously flawed and inaccurate. I think it’s errors go against what you are trying to accomplish with your lawsuits and will cause your blog readers to wonder what is going on. Below is an excerpt from the letter, where I am having trouble. The red text are my comments. I also posted a comment attached to the article on your blog so other readers will be forewarned. In my opinion, this letter should be removed or rewritten.


Peacemaker, this post mainly consisted of  Senate Resolution 511. A lot of what you object to in the post was material in the Senate Resolution itself. If you want to argue with the Senate, be my guest. Do not argue with me about mistakes the Senate might or might not have made. 

The point is, the Senate unanimously adopted this resolution, right or wrong, binding or nonbinding, legal or not, and whether it has the force of law or not. The members of the Senate agreed to this. And according to what the Senate agreed to, just a few months ago, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to assume the office of the Presidency. 

So if the Senate is not going to look completely hypocritical, they have to object to Barack Obama's electoral college votes on January 8, 2008. 

Also, this open letter is from Dr. Douglas W. Schell of the organization known as "Restore the Constitutional Republic" (formerly Democratic Disaster). It is Schell's handiwork, not mine and not Ory's. Sometimes material from others is posted on this blog. Not all of it is totally in agreement. I do not agree with all that is posted here. This post by you, the "Peacemaker", for example, I do not agree with for the most part. Just because it appears on this blog does not mean I endorse it or agree with it. 

Robert Stevens


Whereas the Constitution of the USA states the qualifications of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1,is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; (Which presidential candidate was born outside the US and was eligible to be a presidential candidate?)

Frankly this is an irrelevant question and has nothing to do with the Senate Resolution or the Open Letter. If you want to fight with the Senate, go fight with the Senate, not with me. However, if you investigate a bit, you will see that Barry Goldwater and George Romney, for example, were candidates for the Presidency and were born outside the "United States of America".  Were they eligible? Should they have been allowed to run? Well, who knows? This is up to the lawyers and the courts. But you are welcome to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin all you like. Just do not bother me with it.

and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: (The Panama Canal Zone is not US territory and does not qualify to be considered US soil).

Gee I never noticed that the Senate claimed the Panama Canal zone was US territory or US soil. But again, who cares? This is true under some definitions, but so what? This is what the Senate said. If you want to argue with the Senate be my guest. Just do not bother me with it.

(John McCain was not born on base. Rather, he was born in a hospital, off base, in one of the larger cities near the base.)

Yes, so what? Again, argue with the Senate, not me.

(Being born on a military base in a foreign country does not qualify the child to be considered an American citizen.)

Again, completely irrelevant. Why bring up these offtopic comments? 

Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States . "Born to American citizens.”

(To be considered a 'natural born citizen', one must be born on American soil and be born to two American citizen parents (citizens at the time of the birth of the child).)

By the formal, historic and strictly legal definition, that is correct. And that is the definition used in Lightfoot v. Bowen and in the Donofrio and Cort cases. But even under this definition that the Senate agreed to, Obama fails the test of "natural born citizenship". And that is the point. For the Senate to certify his votes, they have to ignore their own previous resolution.

The Senate Resolution that was adopted unanimously, with Mr. Obama’s approval, declares that natural born means “born to American citizens.” The plural use of citizens implies that the mother and father are both American citizens.

(The 'Senate Resolution 511' is a 'non-binding resolution' and has no legal merit. It doesn't matter what the 'coffee clutch' decided or assumed. They have no legal right to attempt to over-rule or over-turn any portion of the US Constitution. These actions, in my opinion, were intentionally deceitful and malicious. Of course, Mr. Obama was going to approve the ‘Resolution’. He had a hidden agenda by doing so. A question comes to mind – when did we start governing based on assumptions? This ‘Resolution’, in my opinion should be considered a criminal act.)

Again, if you want to argue with the Senate, be my guest. If you want to file suit against the Senate, be my guest. If you want to try to bring criminal charges against the Senate, be my guest. But even under the position the Senate agreed upon in this resolution, Obama fails to meet the "natural born citizenship" requirement. 

And I would not say "Of course Mr. Obama was going to approve the 'Resolution'".  My understanding is that Mr. Obama wanted even looser and more general wording that would have covered his own personal situation, but did not get it.

This, therefore, disqualifies Mr. Obama. His father was NOT an American. He was born in Kenya , while it was under British rule. Mr. Obama states on his own website that he has dual citizenship.

(Disqualification of Mr. Obama should be based on fact and real law, not ‘trumped up law’.)

Well "Peacemaker" if you can find a way to magically get the US Supreme Court to rule on any of these Obama Eligibility cases in the next few days, then please do so. Otherwise, we are left with the political option. Which is what this 'open letter' is pursuing. 

If you want to continue to pursue the legal option yourself, you might find it will take you many millions of dollars and many decades to do so. But feel free to do it if you want. I notice many people are full of advice, but are not willing to do anything whatsoever themselves. But they are quick to criticize others all day long and all night long.